PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BX  5176  .G2  1890 
Gallagher,  Mason. 
The  true  episcopate 


Shelf. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/truehistoricepisOOgall 


THE  TRUE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


AS  SEEN  IN  THE 

ORIGINAL  CONSTITUTION 

OF  THE 

Church  of  Alexandria. 

Efibcofal  in  Goverkmekt  ;  Succession  through  Presbtters  ; 
A  Primitive  Eirekicon. 

BT 

REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER, 

Author  of  "True  Churehmanship  Vindicated;"  "Regard  Dne  to  tke 
Virgin  Mary  ;  "  "  Duty  and  Necetsity  of  RevieioD ;  "  "  The  Protestant 
Kpiicopacy  of  the  RcTolutionary  Patriots,  Lost  and  Restored. " 


lUTBODUCTION  BT 

REV.  JOHN  McDowell  leavitt,  d.  d.,  ll.  d., 

PrafMior  of  Chorcb  History  in  the  Seminary  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Chnrch,  Philadelphia. 


PUBLISHERS  : 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 

N«W  YOBK :  LOWDOK : 

18  &  20  Aetor  Place.  44  Fleet  Street. 

TOROBTO,  CANADA  : 

WILLIAM  BRiaOS, 

1890, 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congrees,  In  the  year  1890,  by 
Mason  Gallagher, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  O. 


QLo  StniJcnta  of  imioimtB  ; 


THIS  V»HrMB   18    AFFECTIONATELY   INSCRIBED  ;    WITH   THE  HOPE 
ANB    PRATER   THAT  IT  MAT  AID   IF  ACQUIRING  RIGHT 
ABD  SOUND  VIEWS    W.TH    RESPECT    TO  A  SUBJECT 
•?   GREAT  importance;     ONE,  WHICH  IS 
CLOSELY  CONNECTED  WITH  THE 
PBOOKES8  OT  THE  UNITY 
OV  THE  CHURCH  ; 
WITH  COMFORT    IN    THE    CHBI8TIAN  FAITH  ;    WITH    THE  EXTENT 
OF  PERSONAL  INFLUENCE;    AND,  CONSEQUENTLY, 
WITH  THE    MEASURE  OF  SUCCES  i  IN 
THE  WOPK  OF  THE  MINISTRY 
OF  TBB  OOSPEL. 


"In  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  we  delivered  our- 
selves from  the  bondage  of  an  unchurching  dogma,  which 
compelled  us  to  stand  aloof  from  all  fellowship  with  other 
branches  of  Christ's  Church,  '  holding  the  Head'  and  '  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.' 

' '  We  have  overleaped  these  long  years  of  estrangement, 
of  separation,  and  have  gone  back  to  that  golden  age  of 
Christian  brotherhood  and  inter-communion.  We  firmly 
believe  that  this  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  is  such  a 
Church  as  essentially  the  Edwardian  Reformers  would  have 
bequeathed  to  u«,  if  they  had  been  permitted  to  complete 
their  work. 

"A  Church  claiming  no  Divine  prescription  for  her  Eccle- 
siastical Polity  ;  an  Episcopacy  which  abjures  the  pretension 
of  being  the  Divinely  appointed  channel  for  the  conveyance 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Ordination  ;  a  ministry  renouncing  the 
name  and  offices  of  a  Sacerdotal  Caste  ;  a  Liturgy  thoroughly 
expurgated  from  all  leaven  of  false  teaching,  yet  holding 
fast  all  that  was  precious  in  the  old. 

"  Therefore,  we  believe  that  this  Church  of  ours  is  a  work 
in  behalf  of  Christian  Union,  a  step,  at  least,  towards  bring- 
ing into  closer  fellowship  all  the  Churches  of  Protestant 
Christendom.  The  great  barrier  to  union  among  Protestants 
is  the  unchurching  dogma — while  it  is  cherished  and  main- 
tained, there  can  be  no  reunion  of  Protestants. 

"  Let  this  obstacle  be  removed.  Let  these  Churches  of 
the  Reformation  acknowledge,  as  their  fathers  did,  three 
centuries  ago,  that  they  stand  on  an  equality  before  God, 
with  diverse  polities  and  administrations,  and  yet  equally 
owned  and  blessed  of  God,  parts  of  one  great  whole — Christ's 
witnessing  Church — and  they  are  prepared  for  a  closer 
union,  which,  though  it  may  not  reach  to  Organic  Unity, 
will  cement  them  into  one  great  army  of  the  Living  God,  to 
meet  the  mighty  assault  of  the  hosts  of  infidelity  on  one 
side,  and  superstition  on  the  other." — Address  of  Bishop 
George  D.  Cummins,  to  Rev.  Dr.  A.  R.  Thompson,  Fraternal 
Delegate  of  the  Reformed  Church  to  Ref.  Epis,  Council,  1875. 
(iv) 


INTRODUCTION. 


EccLESiASTiciSM  fails  at  the  test  point  of  its 
argument.  In  neitlier  Scripture  or  history  is 
there  proof  that  the  Apostolate  was  perpet- 
uated in  the  Episcopate.  This  is  a  conclusion 
of  those  who  draw  their  inferences  not  from 
their  facts  but  their  wishes.  Ignatius  men- 
tions bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  from 
the  titles  it  is  supposed  that  these  clergymen 
were  related  to  each  other  then  as  now  in  the 
Greek,  Latin  and  Anglican  communions.  Of 
this  I  have  never  found  a  trace  of  evidence. 

In  monarchic  Asia,  Episcopal  power  ripened 
early,  but  in  free  Greece  there  was  certainly 
no  bishop  in  Corinth,  when  Clement,  first  of 
Apostolic  Fathers,  wrote  his  first  Epistle.  It 
ia  reasonable  to  conclude  that  as  an  order, 
Episcopacy  would  attain  its  ambition  at  diffe- 
rent times,  according  to  the  genius  and  circum- 
stances of  particular  nations. 

(V) 


vi 


INTRODUCTION. 


What  was  probable  as  an  historic  deduction, 
in  Jerome  becomes  a  proved  fact.  He  testifies 
that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  one  ift  order, 
and  that  the  precedence  of  the  former  was 
founded  on  custom,  and  not  on  constitution. 
This  general  .statement  he  supplements  by  a 
particular  fact.  Jerome  informs  us  that  the 
presbyters  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  elected 
and  called  their  own  bishop. 

The  significance  of  this  statement  the  Author 
of  this  book  grasps  with  great  power.  His 
clear  vision  shows  him  the  importance  of  the 
inevitable  conclusion.  With  admirable  industry 
and  ability  he  illustrates  the  testimony  of  Je- 
rome, and  collects  about  it  the  learning  of  ages. 
The  proof  he  arrays  is  not  only  useful  for  his 
argument,  but  has  great  value  for  the  informa- 
tion imparted.  This  book  should  be  in  the 
library  of  every  clergyman  and  intelligent  lay- 
man. It  adds  both  to  the  Author's  usefulness 
and  reputation,  although  already  widely  and 
favorably  known  to  the  public. 

But  the  subject  has  another  interest.  It 
connects  us  with  the  great  Church  of  Alex- 
andria.   How  wonderful  the  history  of  the  city  ! 


INTRODUCTION. 


vii 


The  Macedonian  hero  laid  its  foundations. 
Here  was  the  seat  of  the  most  famous  ancient 
library.  Here  was  a  centre  of  Hebrew  and 
Hellenic  culture  where  the  Septuagint  had  its 
birth.  Afterwards  it  boasted  the  greatest 
Theological  School  of  Christendom,  was  the 
home  of  Clement,  and  Origen,  and  the  See  of 
the  immortal  Athanasius.  Long  the  light  of 
Alexandria  was  brighter  than  that  of  Rome,  or 
Constantinople. 

John  McDowell  Leavitt, 

Eef.  Epis.  Theo.  Sem., 
Philadelphia. 


"  The  exclusiveness  of  the  Apostolical  Successioo  lay 
on  me  like  an  iceberg.  Its  atmosphere  was  to  me  a 
chill.  I  was  forced  to  admit  the  orders  of  the  priest 
who  wore  his  scapular  to  save  him  from  lust,  pestilence 
and  purgatory,  and  to  deny  the  orders  of  a  Hall,  a 
Storrs,  a  Simpson  and  a  McCosh.  .  .  .  History  showed 
me  the  Hierarchy  ever  fostering  under  its  shadow 
ignorance  and  servitude  1  Apostolical  Succession  and 
priestly  prerogative  I  You  find  them  together.  Priestly 
usurpations  and  superstitions  are  stifling  Protestant- 
ism in  the  Anglican  Church.  I  found  reform  a  dream. 
Nothing  was  left  but  to  be  suppressed,  or  to  withdraw." 
Dr.  Leavitt's  Address,  N.  Y.,  Oct.  20, 1889. 


viii 


INTRODUCTION. 


W"e  append  a  few  kind  words  from  one  who 
haa  80  greatly  adorned  the  high  Office  to  which, 
like  some  of  old,  he  was  elected  almost  by  ac- 
clamation, and  concerning  which  he  haa  bo 
wisely  written. 

"  I  am  glad  that  you  have  resolved  to  repub- 
lish your  work  on  The  Church  of  Alexandria. 

New  witnesses  have  arisen.  New  defenders 
of  the  old  Faith  have  drawn  their  swords,  and 
your  own  wise  arguments  re-stated  will  find 
later  and  vigorous  endorsement,  from  strong 
authority  on  the  other  side  of  the  controversy. 

Hoping  to  see  the  completed  work. 
I  remain  faithfully  yours, 

John  H.  Vincent." 


"  The  Original  Constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say,  is 
the  most  important  question  of  Ante-Niceno 
Christianity."  History  of  the  Early  Christian 
Church. 

Thomas  Wimberly  Mossman, 

Kector  of  Torrington,  England. 


PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  present  volume  is  a 
new  edition  of  a  former  work,  with  a  supple- 
ment, and  a  modified  title.  It  will  be  observed 
moreover,  that  the  writer  in  the  mean  time, 
has  changed  his  Ecclesiastical  relations. 

The  first  edition  was  dedicated  to  the  Laity 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church- of  which 
the  author  had  been  a  minister  for  twenty-four 
years.  It  was  there  stated  that  "  the  errors  and 
innovations  of  the  Clerical  body  portended  the 
disruption  of  our  Church." 

Five  years  after,  the  disruption  feared,  oc- 
curred. A  noble  bishop  had  seen,  that  by  the 
action  of  the  Legislative  Body  of  his  Church, 
in  repeatedly  rejecting  all  remonstrances  from 
those  who  would  stay  the  progress  of  Roman 
and  Ritualistic  innovations,  that  there  was  no 
hope  of  reform  from  within.  He  had  also  ex- 
perienced a  series  of  opprobrious  attacks,  almost 

universal,  from  the  Press  of  his  Communion,  for 
(ix) 


X  PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


his  act  in  communing  at  the  Lord's  table, 
with  ministers  and  laymen  of  Non-Episcopal 
Churches  from  all  Christian  countries,  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  1873. 

Here  he  received  grace  to  take  a  step,  which 
in  moral  grandeur  and  heroism,  no  Bishop 
since  the  Reformation  has  been  enabled  to 
equal,  save  the  Seven  Bishops  who  went  to 
the  tower,  in  their  protest  against  a  similar 
condition  of  Popery.  This  godly  prelate  re- 
signed his  diocese,  his  emoluments,  his  in- 
fluence, and  his  comfort ;  to  go  out  and  to 
re-establish  in  this  land,  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church,  as  it  was  at  first  constituted  by  the 
Heroes  of  the  American  Revolution ;  and  as  the 
Bishops  of  the  Revolution  of  1689  in  England 
earnestly  sought  to  Reform  it. 

The  deed  was  fully  done,  although  the  eflFort, 
with  the  constant  unchristian  assaults,  and 
the  incessant  labors  experienced,  soon  terminated 
the  life  of  this  fearless  leader.  Still,  with  the 
blessing  of  God,  on  the  courage  and  sacrifices, 
and  the  rare  liberality  of  a  few,  a  truly  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church,  with  a  Primitive  min- 
istry ;  a  thoroughly  Biblical,  Evangelical,  and 


PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION.  xi 


elastic  Liturgy  ;  a  Democratic  constitution 
suited  to  a  free  people  ;  offers  itself  as  a  safe  and 
comfortable  haven  of  refuge  to  those  alarmed 
and  disgusted  at  the  inroads  of  Medisevalism, 
which  has  permeated  and  dominated  the  dear 
Church  of  their  childhood.  This  Reformed  Epis- 
copal Church, now  completely  furnished  with  a 
Seminary  ;  a  Church  Endowment ;  an  earnest, 
devoted,  undaunted  band  of  ministers  and  lay- 
men ;  recently  at  its  General  Council,  declared 
by  vote,  its  opinion :  "  This  Church  recognizes 
the  Episcopate  as  an  Office,  but  not  as  an 
Order,"  thus  planting  itself  on  the  sure  ground 
of  Scripture,  and  the  Primitive  Ordinance. 

One  object  of  this  Volume  is  to  establish  by 
an  appeal  to  history,  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
knew  no  other  view,  in  the  first  two  hundred 
years  of  its  existence  ;  that  a  second  ordination 
of  a  presbyter,  who  was  to  possess  the  sole 
power  of  ordination  to  the  ministry,  and  that 
by  divine  appointment,  is  not  narrated  by  any 
author  of  that  period,  whose  works  have  reached 
us;  that  the  succession  mentioned  was  either  a 
succession  of  sound  doctrine,  or,  a  succession 
of  men  in  an  office,  similar  in  principle  to  that 


xii  PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


in  the  case  of  a  Town  Supervisor,  the  incum- 
bent having  no  riiore  power  to  hand  down  his 
authority  to  his  successors  than  any  other  ordi- 
nary Supervisor,  or,  as  is  seen  in  the  succession 
of  our  Presidents, 

And  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  It  is  only  by 
misinierpreting  or  corrupting  the  language  of 
the  early  writers,  or  by  a  sophistical  train  of 
reasoning,  or  from  a  superficial  view,  that  any- 
thing in  the  form  of  a  rational  or  satisfactory 
plea  for  the  exclusive,  continuous,  tactual  suc- 
cession theory,  with  respect  to  a  distinct  third 
order  of  Bishops  by  divine  right,  can  be  con- 
structed. That  the  leading  lightsof  all  Protestant 
Churches,  of  all  names  and  countries,  assert  the 
view  here  maintained  is  fully  shown.  Further 
examination  would  show  that  the  leading  de. 
lenders  of  the  opposite,  exclusive,  hierarchical 
opinion,  have  been  Bishops,  who,  contending 
for  the  emoluments  and  powers  of  their  order ; 
unscripturally,  unrighteously  and  gradually, 
seized  upon,  appropriated,  and  held  with  the 
connivance  of  the  Imperial  authority,  from  the 
Presbyters  ;  have  necessarily  been  biassed  in 


Preface  to  enlarged  edition.  xlil 


their  judgment,  and  could  not  be  expected  to 
present  a  true  and  impartial  view  of  the  case. 

Hierarchical  Domination  was  forced  upon 
the  Church  of  England  in  a  manner  similar  to 
that  of  old,  King  James  I,  arranging  with  Laud 
and  his  subservient  bishops,  in  return  for  their 
acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  Eight  of  the 
Monarchy,  that  they  should  hold  their  Episco- 
pal Office  by  a  similar  Divine,  Exclusive  Right. 
Thus,  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  of  the  pres- 
byters, were  similarly  disregarded,  by  the  adop- 
tion of  the  aristocratic  principle  of  the  Feudal 
System. 

The  writer  does  not  expect  to  influence  the 
minds  of  those  who  have  been  moulded,  as  it 
were,  in  the  forms  of  an  exclusive,  sacerdotal 
ritualistic  system.  The  appeal  to  tradition  and 
custom  overrides,  in  too  many  of  this  class,  the 
force  of  calm,  judicial  inquiry.  We  may  apply 
in  this  case  a  remark  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  made  on 
another  subject,  "That  what  had  never  been 
reasoned  up,  could  not  be  reasoned  down." 

But  that  some  young  men,  in  the  Church,  in 
which  the  writer  served  as  minister  for  twenty- 
seven  years,  may  be  enabled  to  study  the  testi- 


Xiv         PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


mony  here  presented,  and  like  himself  be  enabled 
at  length  to  break  through  the  surrounding 
mist  of  ecclesiastical  delusion,  and  see  the  truth, 
and  thereby  derive  comfort  and  peace  and  power; 
which  cannot  come  from  a  false,  unreasonable 
system;  this  is  his  hope  and  prayer,  in  sending 
forth  these  facts  of  history. 

THE  OFFER  OF  AN  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

Again:  the  Church  from  which  the  writer 
came,  has  recently,  through  its  House  of  Bishops, 
in  the  laudable  line  of  Christian  unity,  pre- 
sented conditions  ou  which  an  imagined  union 
may  be  effected.  It  presents  a  so-called  Histo- 
ric Episcopate  as  the  panacea.  It  offers  this 
blessing  on  the  imperative  condition  that  all 
Non-Episcopal  ministers  shall  renounce  their 
former  orders,  supposing  they  have  them,  and 
shall  submit  to  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Bishops,  and  thereby  receive 
for  the  first  time,  a  valid  commission.  This  is 
undoubtedly  well  meant,  but  will  be  regarded 
by  some  as  partaking  of  a  sublime  audacity; 
inasmuch  as  the  parties  to  receive  this  divine 
gift  outnumber  their   proposed  benefactors 


PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION.  5CV 

twenty-five  to  one;  are  fully  their  equals  in 
mind,  and  attainments ;  have  no  question  but  that 
they  are  validly  and  Scripturally  commissioned  ; 
are  unable  to  see  any  connection  in  the  records 
of  history,  of  an  Episcopal  succession  so-called, 
with  the  Primitive  constitution  of  the  Christian 
ministry ;  and  have  beheld  the  Divine  Benedic- 
tion on  their  labors,  poured  out  as  richly  and 
as  freely  as  upon  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church;  numerically,  in  far  greater  measure. 

Were  it  not  that  this  order  of  men  honestly 
entertain  the  idea  that  they  possess  this  myste- 
rious, undefined  spiritual  power ;  that  they  are 
accustomed  to  legislate  with  closed  doors,  and 
possess  the  prerogative  of  overriding  the  unani- 
mously expressed  will  of  a  distinct  and  lower 
house  of  Presbyters  and  laymen  far  more  nu- 
merous ;  a  power  possessed  by  no  other  body  of 
Protestant  men  in  any  land;  a  system  thor- 
oughly antagonistic  to  American  Republican 
ideas  ;  and  are  necessarily  affected  by  the  con- 
tinuous use  and  contemplation  of  these  exalted 
privileges ;  we  never  would  have  witnessed 
this  remarkable  offer  under  such  peculiar  con- 
ditions.  Human  nature  is  unfitted  for  such 


Xvi         fREFACE  to  ENLARGED  EDITION. 

claims,  and  such  prerogatives,  and  therefore  the 
Master  said  to  His  disciples,  "  all  ye  are  breth- 
ren, and  he  that  is  greatest  among  you  let  him 
be  your  minister."  "For  they  had  a  strife 
among  themselves  which  should  be  greatest." 

When  we  behold  the  founders  of  the  so-called 
Apostolic  succession,  at  the  first  Communion, 
in  the  Master's  presence,  contending  for  spiritual 
domination  ;  is  it  strange  to  witness  so  much 
of  this  same  Spirit  in  the  Church  of  after  ages  ? 

THE  p.  E.  CHURCH  CANNOT  CONFER  THE 
IMAGINARY  GIFT. 

But  there  is  another  essential  Fact  in  this 
connection.  If  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the 
Historic  Episcopate,  and  it  is  of  any  value,  the 
parties  making  this  offer  in  the  present  case 
cannot  deliver  the  goods. 

The  Episcopal  succession  was  obtained  from 
England  upon  the  adoption  of  a  specific  Con- 
stitution and  Prayer  Book.  This  Constitution 
and  Prayer  Book  having  been  received  in  Eng- 
land, and  approved  of,  the  men  elected  were 
thereupon  consecrated,  in  accordance  therewith. 

Afterwards  the  principles  of  that  Constitu- 
tion and  Prayer  Book  were  radically  changed, 


PREFACE   TO  BNLAREGD  EDITION.  xvii 


in  order  to  gratify  a  bishop  consecrated  in 
violation  of  English  law  by  the  Non-jurors, 
who,  with  all  the  clergymen  who  had  elected 
him  (for  no  layman  knew  aught  of  this  secret 
conclave),  was  opposed  to  Washington,  and  the 
Cause  for  which  he  and  the  Continentals  strug- 
gled and  suffered. 

One  of  these  radical  changes  of  the  original 
Constitution  was  iu  the  Fifth  Article,  where  it 
reads :  "  the  bishop  shall  be  considered  a  mem- 
ber of  the  convention  ex-officio."  Nothing  is 
said  of  a  separate  House,  and  at  the  first  con- 
vention after  his  consecration,  there  was  but 
one  House,  and  Bishop  White  was  President 
of  it. 

After  the  admission  of  the  High  Church 
LoyaHsts,  in  1789,  a  separate  House  of  Bishops 
was  formed,  with  power  to  negative  all  acts  of 
the  Lower  House,  unless  passed  by  four-fifths 
of  the  body;  but  as  ecclesiastical  prerogatives 
are  certain  to  grow,  through  the  influence  of 
the  Divine  right  sentiment,  even  this  check  on 
the  bishops  was  removed,  and  an  absolute  power 
of  veto  conferred  upon  the  Body,  thus  estab- 
lishing a  House  of  Spiritual  Lords.  Kadical 


Xviii      PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION. 

changes  had  also  been  made  in  the  Prayer 
Book,  by  a  perverted  Scoto-Romish  Commu- 
nion Service*  and  a  thoroughly  Sacerdotal 
Institution  Office,  appended.  The  Church  thus 
having  radically  changed  the  base  on  which  it 
received  the  succession,  it  follows  that  they  have 
lost  the  special  gift,  if  one  was  conferred.  For 
it  has  become  a  Body  with  principles  diverse 
and  antagonistic  to  those  on  which  it  was  at 
first  constituted. 

But  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  having 
returned  to  the  original  Constitution  and  Prayer 
Book,  is  re-established  upon  the  same  princi- 
ples upon  which  the  Episcopate  was  received. 
Having  recovered  whatever  there  was  of  value  in 
that  gift,  it  alone  possesses,  and  therefore  alone 
can  confer  it.  This  subject  is  considered  in  a 
thorough,  interesting  and  valuable  volume, 
"  What  Do  Reformed  Episcopalians  Believe?" 
the  work  of  Bishop  Charles  E.  Cheney,  D.  D., 
of  Chicago,  the  first  Bishop  consecrated  in  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 

The  writer  has  spoken  with  great  plainness 
with  respect  to  the  ecclesiastical  errors  and 
delusions  which  he  has  here  combatted.  While 


PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION.  xix 


he  has  suffered  from  being  exposed  iii  his  years 
of  preparation  for  the  ministry,  to  the  influence 
of  the  exclusive  sacerdotal  system  of  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  which  has  so  greatly  damaged 
the  Church  of  Christ,  and  it  has  been  the  effort 
of  years  to  be  rid  of  these  influences;  still,  his 
experience  has  enabled  him  to  learn  from  an 
inside  view,  the  full  character  of  this  insidious, 
seductive  and  blinding  scheme.  He  has  under- 
gone with  others  the  distress  of  an  ecclesiastical 
separation,  painful  but  necessary,  the  result  of 
this  system.  In  this  we  follow  noble  examples. 

lie  deeply  regrets  that  so  many  worthy  Chris- 
tians will  voluntarily  remain  under  an  influence 
ecclesiastically  malarious,  when  it  is  in  their 
power  to  enjoy  a  more  healthful  and  comfort- 
able spiritual  region.  He  has  endeavored  to 
show  in  this  volume  the  causes  of  the  growth 
of  error,  and  its  necessary  baleful  effects  in  the 
Church  of  God.  As  a  distinguished  author 
remarked  of  Popery,  he  believes,  that  in  like 
manner,  Ritualism  and  Tractarianism,  and  kin- 
dred delusions,  "  are  a  poison  which  a  healthful 
nature  may  overcome."-  His  earnest  desire  is 
that  all  Christians  may  know  the  truth,  the 


XX  PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITIOK. 


whole  truth, and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  that 
the  truth  as  it  is  iu  Jesus,  may  set  them  free. 

May  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  grant 
Ilis  blessing  on  this  work,  and  enable  it  to  dis- 
seminate Truth,  to  the  advancement  of  His 
glory,  the  good  of  His  Church,  and  the  comfort 
and  usefulness  of  His  children  ! 

An  account  in  full,  chronologically,  of  the 
changes  made  in  the  Prayer  Book  in  England, 
by  the  extreme  Church  party,  will  be  found  in 
a  tract,  entitled  "  The  Duty  and  Necessity  of 
Revision;"  the  departures  from  the  Church  of 
the  Revolution,  in  "  The  Protestant  Episcopacy 
of  the  Revolutionary  Patriots,  Lost  and  Re- 
stored," both  by  the  present  writer,  and  to  be 
obtained  at  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Publication 
Rooms,  1604  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia. 

Note.  As  an  evidence  of  the  deleterious 
effects  of  the  influence  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal General  Theological  Seminary,  and  of  the 
spiritual  malaria  which  environed  it;  four  of 
the  young  men  who  recited  in  the  class  of  the 
Author,  soon  bowed  in  allegiance  before  the 
Pope.  Others  since  have  passed  through  the 
Institution  into  the  same  servitude. 


PREFACE  TO  ENLARGED  EDITION.  xxi 


One  of  these  same  class-mates  said  to  the 
writer,  with  respect  to  many  he  had  left  be- 
hind, "  They  call  us  Papists.  They  are  simply 
Apists."    He  preferred  the  genuine  article. 

He  seemed  full  of  contempt  for  the  nonde- 
script, fantastic  system  through  which  he  had 
passed.  Maj'  the  Lord  send  the  light  of  His 
Gospel  upon  all  counected  with  this  Institution, 
and  niay  those  who  come  forth  from  it,  be 
illuminated  to  know,  and  preuch  simply  "  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  unobscured  by  *'  the 
traditions  and  commandments  of  men!" 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 
June,  1890. 


*  "  Ours,  now  nearly  a  century  in  use,  contains  the 
Sacerdotal  and  Sacramental  System  in  full.  .  .  .  Re- 
tains the  form  of  the  Memorial  Sacrifice,  and  asserts 
the  Apostolic  Succession.  Our  office  teaches  not 
merely  the  Eeal  Presence,  but  also  the  vital  truth,  that 
there  is  a  true  Oblation.  .  .  .  We  have  the  full  Canon 
with  Oblation  and  Invocation  added  to  the  words  of ' 
Institution  and  the  Manual  Acts.  "We  recovered  it 
through  the  Church  of  Scotland.  .  .  .  The  gain  over 
the  English  Book  in  that  one  thing  balances  all  the 
rest."  Rev.  Dr.  Morgan  Dix,  Rector  of  Trinity  Ch., 
N.Y.,  President  of  P.  E.  Gen.  Conventions,  1886  and 
1889.  Lectures  on  th  ^^k  of  Common  Pr^^'er  of  1349. 


"  Snrelj,  if  the  salt  have  not  wholly  lost  its  savour,  some 

one  in  authority,  some  bishop  or  prelate  will  at  length  arise, 
and  be  large-hearted  enough  to  say  to  his  separated  brethren 
of  the  family  of  God  :  There  has  been  enough  of  strife, 
enough  of  division,  henceforth  let  us  be  one  in  Christ. 
We  do  not  ask  for  your  submission,  as  we  have  done  in  the 
weary  ages  of  controversy  that  are  past.  We  ask  for  noth- 
ing, we  wish  for  nothing  save  your  unfeigned  love.  Your 
ministers  we  regard  as  ministers  of  Christ's,  in  accordance 
with  their  work  for  Him,  though  you  may  not  call  them  by 
our  name;  and  in  you  we  gladly  recognize  the  work  and 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  grace,  in  just  as  full  measure  as 
we  behold  them  among  ourselves. 

"When  this  most  joyful  of  days  shall  come,  then  shall 
the  family  of  God  be  one  on  earth,  even  as  it  is  one  in 
heaven  ;  and  then  shall  our  Saviour's  prayer  for  the  fulfill- 
ment of  which  all  loving  hearts  have  ever  been  sighing, 
since  the  spirit  of  disunion  parted  them  asunder,  have  its 
blessed  accomplisLment — 'that  they  all  may  be  one.'" 

Mossman's  Pbeface. 

These  words  w/itten  by  this  large-hearted  and  accom- 
plished Author,  in  the  year  1873,  were  destined  to  meet  with 
their  fulfillment,  in  the  action  of  Bishop  Cummins  before  the 
close  of  that  same  memorable  year,  when,  this  godly  Minis- 
ter, at  the  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York, 
received  grace  and  strength,  in  the  interest  of  Christian 
Truth  and  Unity,  to  sever  his  ecclesiastical  connections,  and 
to  found  a  Church  based  on  the  principles  so  eloquently  and 
lovingly,  above  presented. 


(xxii) 


PREFACE. 


The  principal  object  of  this  essay  is  to  show 
that  the  Church  of  England,  in  publicly  acknowl- 
edging the  validity  of  a  ministry  without  episco- 
pal ordination  or  consecration,  for  more  than  a 
century  after  the  Reformation,  and  in  the  best 
period  of  her  history,  was  sustained  by  the  pre- 
cedent of  the  Primitive  Church. 

The  patriarchal  Church  of  Alexandria  is  here 
proved  to  have  been  episcopal  in  government, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  it  was  without  episcopal 
consecration  or  succession  for  the  space  of  two 
hundred  years  immediately  succeeding  the  times 
of  the  Apostles. 

Ample  proof  is  given  that  the  English  Re- 
formers, Compilers,  and  Revisers  of  our  stand- 
ards, were  cognizant  of  the  fact,  and  reasoned 
and  acted  accordingly, 
(xxiii) 


xxiv 


PREFACE. 


The  concessions  of  the  ablest  modern  divines 
of  the  same  Church  are  here  presented.  The 
Church  of  England  is  thus  fully  vindicated  with 
respect  to  her  deliberate  action  in  the  premises. 

Another  important  point  is  hereby  established. 
According  to  the  same  primitive  precedent,  there 
is  in  the  presbyterate  an  original,  inherent  power 
of  perpetuating  the  ministry  in  all  its  functions, 
and  therefore  to  be  exercised  when  required,  in 
conjunction  with  the  laity,  to  remove  abuses,  and 
to  purify  the  Church. 

Again,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  an 
indispensable,  unbroken  episcopal  tactual  succes- 
sion, asserted  by  the  Romanists,  was  rejected  by 
the  Reformers  and  Revisers  of  our  standards; 
and,  moreover,  that  a  large_  portion  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church  acted  without  respect  to  such  a  suc- 
cession. 

With  the  overthrow  of  this  dogma  is  destroyed 
the  structure  of  a  human,  officiating  priesthood, 
with  the  system  of  Ritualism  based  upon  it. 

The  question  is  one  of  testimony,  not  of  preju- 
dice or  of  mere  individual  opinion.  Ample  tes- 
timony, it  is  claimed,  is  here  given  to  establish 
the  statements  above  made.  A  candid  examina- 
tion is  asked,  and  little  doubt  is  felt  that  there 


PREFACE. 


XXV 


will  be  but  one  decision,  and  that  in  favor  of  the 
positions  here  maintained. 

The  falsity  of  the  claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  the  Primacy  ;  that  she  is  the  mother  and  mis- 
tress of  churches,  is  here  clearly  seen.  In  posi- 
tion and  learning,  and  consequently  in  influence, 
for  the  two  first  centuries,  this  Church  was  subor- 
dinate to  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  Superiority, 
neither  in  learning  nor  zeal,  but  in  wealth  and 
temporal  influence,  gave  the  Church  of  Rome  the 
precedence,  whose  kingdom  for  so  many  centuries 
has  been  manifestly  of  this  world,  not  of  heaven. 

Strange  is  it  that  the  Romish  writers  cannot 
agree  as  to  the  order  of  the  early  bishops  of  that 
see;  nor  can  they  prove  that  for  two  centuries 
they  received  episcopal  consecration.  All  such 
statements  being  based  on  assumptions  and  un- 
founded inferences,  what  becomes  of  that  much 
lauded  succession,  upon  which  rests  the  whole* 
anti-scriptural  system  of  doctrine  and  worship, 
by  which  so  large  a  portion  of  Christendom  has 
been  so  long  deceived  and  shrouded  in  spiritual 
darkness  ?  The  maintenance  of  the  succession 
dogma  by  large  numbers  in  our  own  communion 
strengthens  Romanism  by  distracting  the  Prot- 
estant cause,  and  thus  promotes  schij^m  among 


XXVI 


PREFACE. 


those  holding  the  one  scriptural  faith,  and  the  true 
apostolical  doctrine. 

The  argument  for  the  general  prevalence  of 
moderate  Episcopacy  in  primitive  times  is 
strengthened,  not  weakened,  by  the  views  here 
presented.  With  the  Episcopacy  which  approved 
itself  to  Oanraer,  Jewel,  Usher,  and  Leighton, 
the  writer  is  fully  satisfied.  He  has  seen  nothing 
better  in  his  own  day. 

The  pressing  of  extravagant  claims,  svipported 
neither  by  Scripture,  history,  reason,  or  a  wise 
policy,  has  jeopardized  the  interests,  checked  the 
growth,  and  sadly  impaired  the  reputation  and 
influence  of  the  truly  noble  heritage  handed 
down  to  us  by  the  Protestant  Reformers  of  Eng- 
land. 

The  effort  to  extend  the  system  of  Archbishop 
Laud  in  this  free,  intelligent  land,  has  proved, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  almost  a  complete 
failure ;  and  whatever  hold  our  Church  has  upon 
the  American  people,  is  owing  to  their  convic- 
tion, that  this  system  is  a  false,  and  not  a  true 
presentation  of  Protestant  Episcopacy ;  that  it  is 
ephemeral,  and  will  become,  ere  long,  a  discred- 
ited novelty. 

To  any  charge  of  a  want  of  attachment  to  the 


PREFACE. 


xxvii 


Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  the  writer  will  only 
point  to  a  service  of  near  a  quarter  of  a  century 
in  her  ministry.    He  has  no  other  answer  to  give. 

One  of  the  phenomena  of  our  Church,  is  the 
rapidity  with  which  those  newly  received  into  our 
fold  (and  more  than  half  our  ministry  have  come 
from  other  communions)  become  sounder  church- 
men, in  their  own  estimation,  than  many  who 
have  labored  a  lifetime  in  her  service. 

A  late  bishop,  in  one  of  our  largest  and  most 
generally  exclusive  dioceses,  stated  to  the  writer, 
a  few  years  since,  that  he  had  ascertained  that 
but  one  fifth  of  his  clergy  had  been  reared  in  the 
Episcopal  Church.  In  a  communion  so  conglom- 
erate, is  it  strange  that  there  is  so  little  unity, 
harmony,  and  mutual  cooperation,  or,  that  men 
changing  their  inherited  beliefs,  and  embracing 
the  unscriptural  and  unreasonable  tenets  of  the 
modern,  exclusive, /?/re  divino  Episcopacy,  should 
proceed  to  any  extravagance,  and  even  land  at 
the  true  logical  terminus  of  such  a  theory,  the 
Church  of  Rome,  the  present  home  of  four  of  the 
writer's  classmates  of  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  ?  The  late  President  Nott  has  wisely 
remarked  :  "  Men  who  go  over  from  one  denomi- 
nation to  another  always  stand  up  more  than 


Xxviii 


PREFACE. 


straight^  and  for  two  reasons :  First,  to  satisfy 
their  new  friends  tliat  they  have  heartily  renounced 
their  former  error;  secondly,  to  convince  their  for- 
mer friends  that  they  had  good  reasons  for  de- 
sertion." 

In  view  of  the  state  of  thiiigs  in  our  Church, 
how  singularly  applicable  are  the  words  of  the 
eminent  Dr.  Isaac  Barrow,  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Arnold,  an  equally  eminent  churchman  :  "  A  con- 
siderable cause  of  our  divisions  hath  been  the 
broaching  scandalous  names,  and  employing  them 
to  blast  the  reputation  of  worthy  men,  bespatter- 
ing and  aspersing  them  with  insinuations,  etc. ; 
engines  devised  by  spiteful,  and  applied  by  sim- 
ple people ;  latitudinarians,  rationalists,  and  I 
know  not  what  other  names  intended  for  reproach, 
though  imparting  better  signification  than  those 
dull  detractors  can,  it  seems,  discern." 

From  the  fact  that,  for  some  time,  the  writer 
conscientiously  and  earnestly  advocated  the  ex- 
clusive episcopal  theory,  he  thinks  that  he  enjoys 
a  greater  advantage  in  the  discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion. He  has  surveyed  it  from  more  than  one 
direction.  He  has  known  by  experience  the  evils 
of  the  system  against  which  he  is  earnestly  con- 
tending.    A  somewhat  thorough  study  of  the 


PREFACE. 


zziz 


writings  of  the  English  Reformers,  compelled  him 
to  modify  his  views,  and  to  adopt  the  principles 
of  the  Com|)ileis  of  the  Prayer  Book,  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  innovations  of  Laud  and  of  his  fol- 
lowers. 

Examination  of  the  writings  of  the  Primitive 
Fathers  has  convinced  him  that  the  High  Church 
principle  was  unknown  to  the  Church  before  the 
times  of  Cyprian,  two  centuries  after  the  death 
of  most  of  the  Apostles. 

He  has  yet  to  find  the  statements  of  an  early 
author,  that  Primitive  Episcopacy  was  necessarily 
connected  with  an  episcopal  consecration,  a  sec- 
ond ordination,  or  an  exclusive  tactual  succession 
of  a  third  order  of  the  ministry. 

Having  shown  that  the  most  important  Church 
of  antiquity,  while  episcopal  in  government,  with 
the  clearest  succession  of  patriarchs,  was  yet 
without  episcopal  consecration  and  tactual  suc- 
cession for  two  centuries,  the  burden  of  proof  rea- 
sonably lies  with  those  who  contend  that  other 
churches  possessed  such  a  tactual  and  uninter- 
rupted succession,  to  make  clear  the  fact.  It 
has  never  yet  been  done,  nor  can  it  be  with  our 
present  amount  of  light. 

The  mere  use  of  the  terra  succession,  by  writers 


XXX 


PREFACE. 


like  Eusebius,  Irenaeus,  and  TertuUian,  does  not 
at  all  settle  the  question,  inasmuch  as  succession 
in  office  and  place  are  not  necessarily  connected. 
Dr.  Barrow  quotes  Gregory  Nazianzen  as  saying, 

Atlianasius  was  the  successor  of  Mark,  no  less 
in  piety  than  in  presidency;  the  which  we  must 
suppose  to  be  properly  succession."  This  tactual 
episcopal  succession  is  assumed  by  exclusive 
writers,  while  no  satisfactory  proof  is  furnished. 

In  a  question  like  this,  which  concerns  the 
Church  standing,  and  the  validity  of  ministerial 
acts  in  the  largest  portion  of  the  Reformed  and 
Protestant  Communions,  mere  assumptions  will 
not  pass  current. 

The  reception  of  these  exclusive  assumptions, 
without  satisfactory  proof,  by  Christian  people, 
we  believe,  as  sincere  as  any,  has  produced  its 
natural  fruits,  and  made  our  Episcopacy  need- 
lessly repulsive  and  odious. 

Primitive  Episcopacy,  saddled  with  these  hu- 
man additions,  how  it  has  lost  its  rightful  posi- 
tion ! 

In  the  Roman  Church,  the  effect  is  seen  in  the 
almost  complete  destruction  of  spiritual  religion, 
and  the  substitution  of  an  amalgam  of  Judaism, 
Paganism,  and  a  corrupted  Christianity,  whose 
latest  and  most  favorite  dogma,  the  sinless  Con- 


PREFACE.  XXxi 


ception  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  has  been  borrowed 
from  the  Koran  of  Mohammed. 

In  the  Anglican  Church,  the  result  has  been  the 
repulsion  of  a  large  portion  of  the  most  religious 
minds  of  the  nation  from  its  communion.  In  our 
own  Church,  it  is  seen  in  the  sacrifice  of  strength 
and  numbers,  which  might  readily  have  been  se- 
cured; in  a  waning  inflopnce;  in  intestine  strife; 
in  the  increase  of  formalism;  and  in  the  intel- 
lectual deterioration  of  the  clerical  body.  The 
history  of  the  past,  as  well  as  the  present  con- 
dition of  affairs,  fully  establishes  these  statements, 
and  justifies  the  position  taken  by  the  author; 
a  position  taken  conscientiously,  and  with  the 
sincerest  regard  for  the  truth  and  the  Church 
Catholic,  and  his  own  branch  of  the  same. 

In  a  succession  of  apostolical  doctrine;  in  the 
fact  of  a  ministerial  succession  ;  and  in  a  moder- 
ate, wise,  and  safe  Episcopacy,  he  believes  with 
the  Reformers  ;  but  in  the  Laudean  doctrine  of 
an  indispensable,  unbroken,  episcopal  tactual  suc- 
cession, one  entirely  different  from  that  held  by 
the  Christian  Fathers,  he  has  no  confidence.  He 
has  no  respect  for  what  has  proved  to  be  a  de- 
structive and  impolitic  innovation.  He  trusts 
his  book  may  lead  others  to  a  full  investigation 
of  this  error,  and  to  unite  with  him  in  resisting 


xxxii 


PBEFACE. 


and  opposing  it,  until  the  whole  Church  shall 
combine  in  rejecting  it. 

That  the  legitimate  result  of  the  teachings  of 
Cyprian  was  the  papacy,  he  is  fully  convinced. 
That  the  contest  now  in  the  Church  is  between 
the  principles  of  Cyprian  and  those  of  Luther,  he 
believes,  in  the  words  of  Isaac  Taylor  :  "  It  is  thus 
at  this  moment:  Cyprian  and  Luther  are  wrest- 
ling amain  for  mastery  in  the  English  Church  ; 
and  one  or  the  other  of  these  spirits  must  be  dis- 
lodged. A  se'ason  of  apathy  may  again  come 
upon  the  Church,  and  so  the  struggle  may  stand 
over  to  another  day;  but  at  its  next  revival,  the 
English  Church  will  either  go  over  uncondition- 
ally to  antiquity,  erasing  from  its  formularies 
whatever  is  Protestant  in  them,  and  will  expel  all 
who  adhere  to  scriptural  doctrine  ;  or,  it  will  re- 
cover its  lost  ground,  and  become  consistently 
Protestant  and  biblical." 

How  remarkably  has  this  prediction,  uttered  in 
1843,  been  verified  ?  We  are  already  in  the  midst 
of  the  renewed  conflict.  May  God  speed  the 
right,  and  give  ultimate  triumph  to  a  true  antiq- 
uity ?  May  an  open  Bible,  a  free  pulpit,  an 
evangelical  ministry,  prevail  over  formalism,  rit- 
ualism, ceremonialism,  and  ecclesiasticism,  and 
every  system  akin  to  Judaism  and  Popery  ? 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.  PA«a 

THE  OHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  ACKNOWLEDGES  ONE  EVANUULIOAI. 

MINISTRY  1 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PATRIARCHAL  CHUP.CH  OF  ALEXANDRIA  FURNISHES  PRIM- 
ITIVE PRI'X'EDENT  TO  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  WITH 
RESPECr  TO  THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDINATIONS  IN  CHURCHES 
DESTITUTE  OK  El-ISCOPAL  CONSECRATION  AND  SUCCESSION  .  10 

CIlAl'TEli  HI. 

NO  EPISCOPAL  CONSECRATION  OR  SUCCESSION  KNOWN  IN  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ALEXANDRIA  FOR  MORE  THAN  TWO  CENTU- 
RIES AFTER  ST.  MARK  19 

CHAPTER  IV. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ENGLISH  REFORMERS  24 

CHAPTER  V. 

WRITERS  OF  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY  4S 

CHAPTER  VI. 

MODERN  EPISCOPAL  WUITKRS  53 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  ARGUMENT  OF  AN  EPISCOPAL  LAYMAN  OF  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ENGLAND,  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THK  ORDINATIONS  OF  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ALEXANDRIA  6S 

(xzxiii) 


Xxxiv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII.  FAM 

ROMAN  CATHOLIC  TESTIMONY  81 

CHAPTER  IX. 

OB.IECTIOXtl  84 

CHAPTER  X. 

KKCAI'lTULATION  100 

CHAPTER  XI. 

TESTIMONY   KliOM  NON-EI'ISCOI'AL  STANDAIII)  WltlTEKS     .         .  107 

CHAPTEH  XII. 

SUCCESSION   OF   SOUND   DOCTWNE,  THE  TKUE  APOSTOLIC  SUC- 
CESSION  167 


APPENDIX  A. 

ADDITIONAL  TKsTIMOXV  195 

APPENDIX  B. 

CONKIKMATOKY  EVIDENCE  206 

APPENDIX  C. 

KURTHEK  LAY  TESTIMONY  217 


roXTENTS  OF  SUPPLEMENT. 


PAGE 

EXAMINATION  OP  GORE'S  OBJECTIONS        ....  337 

TRSTIMONIES    FROM    THE  METHODIST    COMMUNION — WES- 

LEYf  COKE,  EMORY,  PECK   243-9 

CONGREGATIONAL  AND  PRESBYTERIAN  TESTIMONY  — CON- 
DEH,  SPARKS,  MEHKIAM,  HALL,  IIITCHCOCK,  FI8HEK, 
SMYTH,  MILLER,  DWIGHT,  MASON,  BOARDMAN    .  249-79 

EPISCOPAL  TESTIMONY — JACOB,  LIGMTFOOT,  HATCH,  MOSS- 
MAN,  GREENWOOD   281-309 

A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  WITNESS— ILLENDORF         .         .  309-12 

DR.   WHITTAKER  ON  JEltOMK  313 

moderation  of  whitgift 

saravia  ordained  by  prebbtteks 

selden's  version  cf  eutychius  319 

jewel  on  jerome  330 

continental  churches  and  refokmkks  on  jkkomk  ; 

lutheh,  calvin,  claude,  etc  331 

conclusion — dr.  r.  b.  welch  on  tub  offer  of  the 

histokic  episcopate  333 


.  1.315 

.  317 


(xxxv) 


"  They  do  but  abuse  tbemselvea  and  others, 
who  would  persuade  us  that  Bishops  by  Christ's 
Institution  have  any  Superiority  over  other 
men ;  for  we  have  believed  him  who  told  us, 
that  in  Jesus  Christ  there's  neither  High  nor 
Low,  and  that  in  giving  honor,  every  yuan  should 
be  ready  to  'prefer  another  before  himself;  which 
saying  must  certainly  cut  off  all  claim  to  supe- 
riority by  Title  of  Christianity,  except  men  can 
think  these  things  were  spoken  to  poor  and 
private  men.  Nature  and  Religion  agree  in 
this,  that  neither  of  them  had  a  hand  in  this 
Heralding  of  secundum,  sub  et  supra:  all  this 
comes  from  Composition  and  Agreement  of 
men  among  themselves.  .  . 

"The  pursuit  of  Truth  has  been  my  only 
care  ever  since  I  understood  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  For  this  I  have  forsaken  all  hopes,  all 
friends,  all  desires  .which  might  bias  me,  and 
hinder  me  from  driving  right  at  what  I  aimed. 
For  this  I  have  spent  my  money,  my  means, 
my  youth,  my  age,  and  all  that  I  have.  If 
with  all  this  cost  and  pains,  my  purchase  is  but 
error,  I  may  safely  say,  to  err  has  cost  me  more 
than  it  has  many  to  find  the  truth:  and  truth 
shall  give  me  this  testimony  at  last,  that  if  I 
have  missed  of  her,  it  was  not  my  fault,  but  my 
misfortune." 

"  Ever  Memorable  *  John  Hales,  of  Eton. 

(xxxvi) 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHURCH   OF  ENGLAND   ACKNOWLEDGES  ONE 
EVANGELICAL  MINISTRY. 

It  is  widely  asserted  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which 
are  identical  in  doctrine  and  government,  deny 
the  valid  character  of  orders  not  conferred  by 
Episcopal  bishops.  As  tliis  charge  is  a  serious 
one,  affecting  the  scriptural  standing  of  that 
church,  it  is  important  that  it  should  be  exam- 
ined, and  if  false,  be  refuted. 

History  fully  vindicates  this  Church  from  the 
charge,  and  establishes  her  character  as  compre- 
hensive and  catholic. 

The  principles  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
settled  by  the  Reformers,  in  the  reigns  of  Edward 
and  Elizabeth,  when  the  Liturgy  and  Articles 
were  compiled  and  revised.  The  action  of  that 
Church  during  tliis  period  is  the  best  commentary 
on  the  intention  of  its  legislators,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  their  words. 

1 


2 


THH:  I'KIMITIVK  K1KF.NICC)X. 


The  point  to  bt;  ascertained  in  reference  to  tlie 
matter  we  are  considering,  is,  How  did  these  au- 
thorities deal  with  those  who  sought  to  niinister 
in  holy  things  in  their  Church,  but  who  had  been 
ordained  according  to  the  Presbyterian  form? 
Did  they  acknowledge  the  valid  character  of  such 
ordination,  or  did  they  not?  This  is  the  simple 
question,  and  on  its  answer  the  whole  controversy 
hinges.  History  decides  this  point  as  it  does 
points  with  respect  to  the  meaning  and  intent  of 
the  American  Constitution.  What  Washington, 
Hamilton,  and  Madison  have  clearly  declared  to 
be  the  meaning  of  the  latter,  we  receive  :  what 
Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  Jewel  plainly 
teach  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  Episco- 
pal standards,  no  unprejudiced  man  will  gainsay. 
It  is  remarkable,  in  view  of  the  opinions  advanced 
by  many  modern  Episcopal  diyines,  that  for  more 
than  a  century  after  the  compilation  of  the  Prayer 
Book,  that  book  was  used  by  ministers  not  or- 
dained by  bishops,  who  yet  were  regularly  induct- 
ed into  parishes  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
the  sacraments  administered  and  all  the  functions 
of  the  ministry  exercised  by  the  same,  no  man 
forbidding. 

The  proof  we  proceed  to  give,  and  if  conclu- 
sive, it  settles  the  question,  notwithstanding  the 
assertions  of  no  matter  how  many  modern  claim- 
ants to  the  exclusive  validity  of  episcopal  orders. 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  may  be  thor- 


JloDKli.V  lliiN  (iF.  IIIK  (  III  liCH  OF  KX(,1.AXU.  3 


oughly  coniprc'lieii.si ve,  wliik;  nt  the  same  time 
many  Protestant  Episcopalians  may  be  exclusive, 
and  stand  on  a  contracted  platform. 

S  I  li  YPK  (difd  1  737). 

Strype,  tlie  historian,  remarks  on  tlie  act  13th 
of  Elizabeth,  "  By  this  the  ordinations  of  the 
foreign  reformed  cliurches  were  made  valid,  and 
those  that  had  no  other  orders  were  made  the 
same  capacity  with  others,  to  enju//  any  place 
within  England,  merely  on  their  subscribing  the 
articles"  (vol.  ii.  |).  514). 

(kkble.) 

Keble,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  modern 
school  of  Oxford,  admits,  in  his  preface  to  Hook- 
er's works  (p.  76),  that  "  nearly  up  to  the  time 
that  Hooker  wrote  (1594),  numbers  had  been  ad- 
mitted to  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  England, 
with  no  better  than  presbyterian  ordination." 

JSISHOI*  HALL  (died  16.";6). 

Bishop  Hall  (vol.  x.  341)  writes  :  "  The  sticking 
at  the  admission  of  onr  l)rethren,  returning  from 
foreign  reformed  churches,  was  not  In  the  case  of 
ordination,  but  of  institution  ;  they  had  been  ac- 
knowledged ministers  of  Christ  loithout  any  other 
hands  laid  on  them ;  but  according  to  the  laws  of 
our  land,  they  were  not  capable  of  institution  to 
a  benefice,  unless  they  were  so  qualified  as  the 


4 


THK  I'KIMLTIVK  KIKlvNICON. 


statutes  of  this  realm  doth  require.  And,  secondly, 
I  know  those,  more  tlian  one,  that  by  virtue  of  that 
ordination,  which  they  have  brought  with  them 
from  other  reformed  churches,  have  enjoyed  spir- 
itual promotions  and  livings  without  any  excep- 
tions ag-ainst  the  lawfulness  of  their  callings^ 

BISHOP  COSIN  (died  1672). 

Bishop  Cosin,  in  his  letter  to  Cordel,  states  :  — 
"  If  at  any  time,  a  minister  so  ordained  in 
these  French  churches  came  to  incorporate  him- 
self in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge  or 
cure  of  souls  among  us,  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land (as  I  have  known  some  of  them  to  have 
done  of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many  others 
before  my  time),  our  bishops  did  not  reordain 
him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must  have  done  if  his 
former  ordination  in  France  had  been  void  ;  nor 
did  our  laws  require  more  of  him  than  to  declare 
his  public  consent  to  the  religion  received  among 
us,  and  subscribe  the  articles  established "  (p. 
231,  Am.  ed.) 

BISHOP  BURNET  (died  1714). 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  the  "  History  of  his  own 
Times  "  (vol.  i.  p.  332),  testified  that  to  the  year 
1662,  "  those  who  came  to  England  from  the  for- 
eign churches,  had  not  been  required  to  be  reor- 
dained  among  us."  In  his  "  Vindication "  (p. 
,84)  he  says  :  "  No  bishop  in  Scotland,  during  my 


MOI)Kl;\II()\  OF  THE  ('HUKCH  OF  ENGLAND.  5 


Stay  in  that  kingdom,  did  so  much  as  desire  any 
of  the  Presbyterians  to  be  ordained." 

BISHOP  FLEETWOOD  ((lied  1723). 

Bishop  Fleetwood,  in  his  works  (p.  552),  writes 
of  the  Church  of  England  :  — 

Certainly  it  was  her  practice  during  the  reigns 
of  King  James  and  Charles  I. ;  and  to  the  year 
1661,  we  had  many  ministers  from  Scotland, 
from  France,  and  the  Low  Countries,  who  were 
ordained  by  presbyters  only,  and  not  bishops,  and 
they  were  instituted  into  benefice  with  cure ;  and 
yet  were  never  reordained,  but  only  subscribed  the 
articles." 

HALLAM  AND  MACAULAY. 

We  close  our  testimony  in  the  case,  with  the 
statement  of  two  modern  standard  historians. 
Hallam,  in  his  Constitutional  History"  (p.  224), 
writes :  — 

"  It  had  not  been  unusual  from  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  Reformation,  to  admit  ministers,  or- 
dained in  foreign  churches  to  benefices  in  Eng- 
land ;  no  reurdiaation  liad  ever  been  practiced 
with  respect  to  those  who  had  received  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  in  a  regular  church  ;  and  hence  it 
appears  that  the  Church  of  England,  whatever 
tenet  might  latterly  have  been  broached  in  contro- 
rersy,  did  not  conmler  the  ordinations  of  presbyters 
invalid." 


6 


THE  PRIMITIVK  KIKKN' ICf )X. 


Macaulay,  in  his  "  History  "  (vol.  i.  132),  states  : 

—  "  Episcopal  ordination  was  now  (1662),  for  the 
first  time,  made  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
preferment." 

From  the  above  facts,  which  cannot  be  gain- 
said, it  is  clear  that  the  Church  of  England  prac- 
tically acknowledged  for  more  than  a  century,  in 
the  most  open  manner,  the  validity  of  orders  not 
episcopal,  and  allowed  her  members  to  receive 
the  sacraments,  and  ministrations  of  clergymen, 
without  such  orders. 

We  have  presented  the  testimony  of  seven 
Church  of  England  bishops,  presbyters,  and  lay- 
men, ehm'chmen  of  all  parties,  clearly  to  the 
point,  that "  many  ministers  "  —  "  more  than  one  " 

—  "numbers,''  "were  instituted  into  benefices 
with  cures,"  "enjoyed  spiritual  promotions  and 
livings."  "  with  the  same  capacity  with  others," 
"were  acknowledged  ministers,"  "were  never  re- 
ordained,"  for  "  no  reordination  had  ever  been 
practiced  with  respect  to  them,"  "  from  the  very 
beginnings"  of  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of 
England. 

EDWARD  VI. 

Moreover,  during  the  same  period,  a  Presbyte- 
rian Church  composed  of  foreigners,  with  a  Pres- 
byterian ministry,  was  placed  under  the  spiritual 
charge  of  the  Bishop  (jf  London,  and  has  thus  re- 


MODERAirOX  OK  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAXD.  7 


mained  till  the  present  day.  The  patent  granted 
by  Edward  VI.,  1550,  reads,  "  that  by  the  ministers 
of  the  Church  of  tlie  Germans,  and  other  stran- 
gers, a  sound  interpretation  of  the  most  Holy  Gos- 
pels, and  the  adiiiinistralioii  of  the  sacraments 
according'  to  lite  Word  of  God  and  Apostolic  cus- 
toms rnu//  e.r.isty 

If  such  ministrations  be  invalid,  how  can  that 
Church,  her  officers  and  rulers,  be  excused  for  such 
dereliction  of  duty  ? 

In  this  view  of  the  valid  character  of  the  min- 
istrations of  the  foreign  Presbyterian  ministers, 
the  King  was  fully  sustained  by  the  venerable 
Cranmer. 

ARCHBISHOP  CKANMKR. 

Archbishop  Parker,  in  his  "  Antiqnitates  Britan- 
nicse  "  (p.  580),  states  :  "  Archbishop  Cranmer,  that 
he  might  strengthen  the  evangelical  doctrine  in 
the  Universities  of  Cambridge  and  Oxford,  fronr> 
which  an  infinite  number  of  teachers  might  go 
forth  for  ihe  instruction  of  the  whole  kingdom, 
called  into  England  the  most  celebrated  divines 
of  foreign  nations:  Peter  Martyr  Vermellius,  a 
Florentine,  and  Martin  Bucer,  a  German,  from 
Strasburg.  The  former  taught  at  Oxford,  the 
latter  at  Cambridge.  Wiih  the  latter,  also,  Paul 
Fagius  became  Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Cambridge. 
And  besides  these,  ImmanucI  Tremellius,  Berna- 
dinus  Ochine,  Peter  Alexander,  Volerandus  Pol- 


8 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIKEXICON. 


lanus,  all  of  whom,  with  their  wives  and  children, 
he  maintained.  Philip  Melancthon  and  Musculus 
also  were  invited." 

The  author  of  "  Vox  Ecclesiag "  excepts  to 
the  statement  in  "  True  Churchmanship  Vindi- 
cated," that  these  men  were  regarded  as  "  minis- 
ters." But  Parker  continues  :  Fagius  soon  died. 
The  other  two,  by  constant  readings,  sermons,  and 
disputations,  refuted  popery  and  spread  the  gos- 
pel." 

In  the  "  Zurich  Letters we  find  Peter  of  Peru- 
gia writing  to  Bullinger  thus  from  Cambridge : 
"  Martin  Bucer,  Bernadine,  and  Peter  Martyr  are 
most  actively  laboring  in  their  ministry."  The 
Martyr  Bradford, —  whom  of  all  the  Reformers, 
the  Romanists  sought  most  earnestly  to  pervert 
to  their  creed,  —  in  his  farewell  to  Cambridge, 
exclaims,  "  Remember  the  readings  and  preach- 
ings of  God's  true  prophet  and  preacher,  Martin 
Bucer."' 

Keble  attempts  to  excuse  the  English  Reform- 
ers, on  the  ground  that  they  were  affected  by  their 
"personal  friendships  and  political  sympathies" 
with  foreigners  ;  that  they  had  given  up  the  argu- 
ment from  "  tradition,"  on  which  exclusive  Epis- 
copacy is  based;  and  that  "they  wanted  the  full 
evidence  of  the  Fathers,  with  which  later  genera- 
tions have  been  favored,"  especially  .a  "  genuine 
copy  of  the  works  of  Ignatius."' 

To  this  we  reply,  that  the  Reformation  divines 


MODKRATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  9 


were  more  fully  read  in  the  Fathers  than  our 
modern  theologians,  the  patristic  writings  consti- 
tuting almost  the  sole  Christian  literature  then 
extant ;  that,  though  they  differed  essentially  with 
respect  to  the  office  of  tradition  with  this  Oxford 
professor,  nevertheless,  tradition  also  sustains  them 
in  their  views,  as  well  as  Holy  Scripture.  On 
motives  of  principle,  as  well  as  of  sympathy  and 
affection,  they  acted  with  ecclesiastical  modera- 
tion, and  framed  our  standards  accordingly. 

Taking  tradition  as  authority,  how  could  they 
assert  that  episcopal  orders  were  alone  valid, 
when  a  large  and  important  section  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church,  from  apostolic  times  to  the  year  250, 
had  neither  episcopal  consecration  nor  succes- 
sion. For,  in  one  of  the  largest  churches  of 
antiquity,  simple  appointment  by  presbyters  con- 
ferred all  the  rights  of  the  primitive  episcopate. 


I 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  PATRIARCHAL  CHURCH  OF  ALRXANDRfA  FUR- 
NISHES PRIMITIVE  PRKCEDENT  TO  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ENGLAND  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE  VALIDITY  OF 
ORDINATIONS  IN  CHURCHES  DESTITUTE  OF  EPIS- 
COPAL CONSECRATION  AND  SUCCESSION. 

The  portion  of  the  Primitive  Church  to  which 
we  are  to  look  for  precedent  to  sustain  the  action 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  acknowledging 
ordinations  without  Episcopal  succession  to  be 
valid  is  the  patriarchal  Church  of  Alexandria. 

In  order  to  exhibit  the  important  position  of  the 
Church  and  City  of  Alexandria,  we  give  the  lan- 
guage of  a  few  of  our  standard  writers  :  — 

VR.  JOHN  LORD. 

Professor  John  Lord,  in  his  recent  work,  entitled 
«'  The  Old  Roman  World,"  thus  writes  :  "  The 
ground-plan  of  this  great  city  was  traced  by  Alex- 
ander himself  ;  but  it  was  not  completed  until  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus.  It  continued  to 
receive  embellishments  from  nearly  every  mon- 
arch of  the  Lagian  line.  Its  circumference  was 
abont  fifteen  miles ;  the  streets  were  regular,  and 


THE  CITY  OF 


ALEXANDRIA. 


11 


crossed  one  another  at  right  angles,  and  were  wide 
enough  to  admit  both  carriages  and  foot  passen- 
gers. 

"  The  harbor  was  large  enough  to  admit  the- 
largest  fleet  ever  constructed  ;  its  walls  and  gates 
were  constructed  with  all  the  skill  and  strength 
known  to  antiquity  ;  its  population  numbered  six 
hundred  thousand,  and  all  nations  were  repre- 
sented in  its  crow<led  streets.  The  wealth  of  the 
city  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  one 
year  6,250  talents,  or  more  than  $6,000,000,  were 
paid  to  the  public  treasury  for  port  dues. 

"  The  library  was  the  largest  in  the  world,  and 
numbered  over  seven  hundred  thousand  volumes, 
and  this  was  connected  with  a  museum,  a  menag- 
erie, a  botanical  garden,  and  various  halls  for  lec- 
tures, altogether  forming  the  most  famous  univer- 
sity in  the  empire. 

"  The  inhabitants  were  chiefly  Greek,  and  had 
aU  their  cultivated  tastes  and  mercantile  thrift. 
In  a  commercial  point  of  view,  it  was  the  most 
important  in  the  empire,  and  its  ships  whitened 
every  sea. 

Alexandria  was  of  remarkable  beauty,  and  was 
called  by  Ammianus,  vertex  omnium  civitatum. 
Its  dry  atmosphere  preserved  for  centuries  the 
sharp  outlines  and  gay  colors  of  its  buildings, 
some  of  which  were  remarkably  imposing. 

"The  Mausole  um  of  the  Ptolemies,  the  High 
Court  of  Justice,  the  Stadium,  the  Gymnasium, 


12 


nil-   I>l;i.MIIIVi:  EIKKXICOX. 


the  Palaestra,  the  Amphitheatre,  and  the  Temple 
of  the  Caesars,  called  out  the  admiration  of  trav- 
ellers. The  Emporiun)  tar  surpassed  the  quays 
of  the  Tiber.  But  the  most  imposing  structure 
was  the  Exchange,  to  which  for  eight  hundred 
years  ail  the  nations  sent  their  represenratives.  It 
was  commerce  which  made  Alexandria  so  rich 
and  beautiful,  and  for  which  it  was  more  distin- 
guished than  both  Tyre  and  Carthage.  Unlike 
most  commercial  cities,  it  was  intellectual ;  and  its 
schools  of  poetry,  mathematics,  medicine,  philos- 
ophy, and  theology,  were  more  renowned  than 
even  those  of  Athens  during  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries.  For  wealth,  population,  intelligence, 
and  art,  it  was  the  second  city  of  the  world.  It 
would  be  a  great  capital  in  these  times"  ^nn  89 
90). 

DR.  WM.  S.  TYLER. 

Professor  Tyler,  in  his  fifth  article  on  "  Repre- 
sentative Cities,"  in  Hours  at  Home,"  October, 
1867,  writing  of  Alexandria,  says :  "  It  was  the 
mission  of  Alexandria  to  collect  manuscripts;  to 
revise  editions  of  the  classics  ; -to  compose  sys- 
tematic treatises  on  gi'ammar,  geography,  and  the 
mathematical  and  physical  sciences  ;  to  found 
libraries  and  inaugurate  universities  ;  to  estal)lish 
an  exchange  for  the  intellectual  productions  and 
literary  wares  of  distant  lands ;  to  criticise  and 
compare  the  literature  of  different  nations;  to 


Till-:  CITY  f)F  Al.KXAXDKIA. 


13 


eclecticise,  if  I  may  so  say,  the  philosophy  of  the 
Orient  and  the  Occident,  and  even  to  mediate  be- 
tween the  religion  of  Greeks  and  barbarians,  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  In  short,  to  collect  whatever  was 
valuable,  to  select  whatever  was  true  and  beautiful 
and  good,  and  to  perpetuate  whatever  was  worth 
preserving  ;  this  was  the  idea,  this  the  aim  of 
Alexandria,  though,  like  all  other  human  aims  and 
ideas,  it  was  imperfectly  accomplished.  .  Here  the 
Alexandrian  critics  corrected  and  settled  the  text 
of  Homer,  the  Bible  of  the  ancient  Greeks.  Here, 
also,  the  seventy  translated  the  Old  Testament 
from  Hebrew  into  Greek.  Here,  also,  was  the 
principal  catechetical  school  and  theological  sem- 
inary of  the  early  Christian  Church.  .  .  .  The 
birthplace  of  the  eloquent  ApoUos,  the  philosoph- 
ical Clement,  the  learned  Origen,  and  the  the- 
ological Athanasius  ;  the  traditional  place  of  the 
martyrdom  and  burial  of  the  Evangelist  Mark, 
and  the  probable  source  of  those  speculations 
touching  '■the  Logos.,'  to  which  the  Apostle  John 
alluded  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel ;  it  was 
in  Alexandria  that  Christianity,  wedded  to  philos- 
ophy, began  to  command  the  respect  of  the 
learned,  armed  herself  with  new  weapons  for  the 
defense  of  the  taith,  and  entered  upon  a  new,  and 
in  some  respects,  a  higher  field  of  conflict  and 
triumph.  .  .  . 

"  Christian  Alexandria  holds  a  conspicuous  place 
in  Ecclesiastical  History.    Alexandria  gave  the 


14 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRE5IC<JN. 


world  The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  and  in  this 
and  various  other  ways  contributed  largely  to 
form  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  —  that 
copious,  flexible,  and  expressive  Hellenistic  Greek 
in  which  the  Gospel  was  earliest  and  most  widely 
promulgated  among  the  nations.  Alexandria  en- 
listed learning  and  philosophy  in  the  service  of 
religion,  and  gave  to  the  Church  its  fir>t  theolog- 
ical school,  and  its  most  full,  (lefinite,  and  generally 
accepted  creed." 

DR.  <;K<>H'jK  houk. 

Professor  George  Howe,  in  his  '•  Bicentenary 
Discourse  on  Theological  Education,"  1844  (p. 
69),  thus  speaks  of  the  Alexandrian  Seminary:  — 

"  This  school  was  taught  bv  a  succession  of 
men  eminent  for  learning,,  science,  and  piety. 
Among  them  were  Pantaenus,  Clement,  and  Ori- 
gen,  men  famous  while  they  lived  for  their  talents, 
learning,  and  influence. 

•'  The  industry  of  these  teachers,  and  of  Origan 
in  particular,  was  intense.  Besides  teaching  the 
principal  branches  of  theological  srudy,  and  the 
exegesis  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures, 
they  added  the  Grecian  literature,  and  the  study 
of  philosophy,  and  indeed  everything  which  would 
discipline  the  minds  of  the  young  men,  and  pre- 
pare them  the  better  for  a  life  of  Christian  activ- 
ity. Clement  says  that  he  had  many  eminent 
men  as  his  teachers ;  one  in  Greece,  who  was  au 


THE  SCHOOI.S  OK  A  1,KX  A  N  Dli  I  A. 


15 


Ionian,  another  in  Magna  Grecia  ;  one  from 
Coelosyria,  another  from  Egypt ;  others  from  the 
East,  and  of  these,  one  from  Assyria,  another  in 
Palestine,  a  Hebrew  by  descent.  The  last  I  met 
was  the  first  in  power:  him  I  found  concealed  in 
Egypt,  and  rested  satisfied.  He  was  a  true  Sicil- 
ian bee,  gathering  the  flowers  of  the  Prophetic 
and  Apostolic  meadows,  who  engendered  true 
knowledge  in  the  minds  of  those  who  heard  him. 
He  thus  describes  Panta-nus,  his  revered  prede- 
cessor in  the  Alexandrian  School." 

HOSPINIAN. 

Hospinian,  as  quoted  by  Professor  Emerson  in 
his  elaborate  history  of  this  school,  in  the  "  Bib- 
lical Repository"  (vol.  iv.  1834),  remarks:  — 

"  Multitudes,  renowned  for  learning  and  piety, 
issued  forth  from  it,  as  from  the  Trojan  horse, 
and  applied  themselves  to  the  blessed  work  of  the 
Lord  in  the  churches  of  the  East." 

DR.  HASE. 

Dr.  Hase,  in  his  "  Church  History  "  (p.  117), 
graphically  describes , the  most  learned  scholars  of 
this  most  famous  university,  who  succeeded  Ori- 
gen  :  — 

"  From  the  Alexandrian  School  proceeded  those 
who  represented  the  theology  of  their  century. 
Athanasius,  a  didactic  rather  than  an  exegetical 
writer,  who  ingeniously  and  enthusiastically  re- 


l^j  THK  PRIMITIVE  EIKEXICOX. 

duced  all  Christianity  to  the  simple  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ;  and  the  three  Cappadocians,— 
Gregory  of  Nys.sa  (died  about  394),  who,  next  to 
Ongen,  was  most  distinguished  for  his  scientific 
profundity  and  originality;  his  brother  Basil,  the 
great  metropolitan  of  Csesarea  (died  379),  equally 
zealous  for  science  and  inonasticism,  but  more 
remarkable  for  liis  talents  in  the  administration  of 
ecclesiastical  affkirs ;  and  the  abused  friend  of  his 
youth,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  (died  390),  by  in- 
clination and  fortune  so  toss.'d  between  the  tran- 
quillity of  a  contemplative  lif,.  niul  the  storms  of 
ecclesiastical  government,  that  he  had  no  satisfac- 
tion m  either,  _  neither  a  profound  thinker  nor  a 
poet,  but  according  to  the  as|)irati()ns  of  his  youth 
an  orator,  frequently  pompous  and  dry,  but  labor- 
ing  as  powerfully  for  the  triumph  of  orthodoxy  as 
for  genuine  practical  Christianity.    Next  to  these 
were   Eusebius  of  C;esarea  (died  340),  whose 
f^imple  but  not  artless  style  was  like  that  of  one 
whose  knowledge  was  abundant,  who  was  fond 
of  peace,  and  disinclined  to  the  new  formula  of 
orthodoxy;  and  blind  Didymus  (died  39o),  in  spirit 
and  in  faith  the  last  faithful  follower  of  Origen." 


'5^ 

DEAN  STANLEY. 


"  The  most  learned  body  assembled  at  Nicsea 
was  the  Church  of  Alexandria,"  writes  Dean  Stan- 
ley, in  his  "History  of  the  Eastern  Churdi." 
"  The  See  of  Alexandria  was  then  the  most  im- 


THK  CHURCH  OF  AI^KXAXDRIA. 


17 


portant  in  the  whole  Church.  Alexandria,  till  the 
rise  of  Constantinople,  was  the  most  powerful 
city  in  the  East.  The  prestige  of  its  founder  still 
clung  to  it.  The  Alexandrian  Church  was  the 
only  great  seat  of  Christian  learning.  Its  episco- 
pate was  '  the  Evangelical  See,'  as  founded  by 
the  Evangelist  St.  Mark.  '  The  chair  of  St. 
Mark'  was,  as  it  still  is,  the  name  of  the  patri- 
archal throne  of  Egypt.  Its  occupant,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  the  only  potentate  of  the  time  who 
bore  the  name  of  '  Pope.'  After  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  he  became  the  'judge  of  the  world,'  from 
his  decisions  respectino;  the  celebration  of  Easter ; 
and  the  obedience  paid  to  his  judgment  in  all 
matters  of  learning,  secular  and  sacred,  almost 
equalled  that  paid  in  later  days  to  the  ecclesias- 
tical authority  of  the  Popes  of  the  West.  The 
'  head  of  the  Alexandrian  Church,'  says  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  '  is  the  head  of  the  world." 

In  his  own  province,  his  jurisdiction  was  even 
more  extensive  than  that  of  the  Roman  Pontiff. 
Not  only  did  he  consecrate  all  the  bishops  through- 
out his  diocese,  but  no  other  bishop  had  any  in- 
dependent power  of  ordination  (p.  237). 

RKV.  JOSEPH  BIXCtHAM  (died  1  723). 

In  his  "  Antiquities  "  (vol.  i.  p.  218),  this  learned 
author  writes  :  — 

*'  I  must  here  observe  that  the  Primate  of  Alex- 
andria was  the  greatest  metropolitan  in  the  world, 

"'2 


18 


THE  I'lMMITlVK  KIREXICON. 


both  ill  the  absolntenetis  of  his  power  and  the  ex- 
tent of  his  jurisdiction.  For  he  was  not  metro- 
politan of  a  single  province,  but  of  all  the  prov- 
inces of  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Pentapolis,  in  which 
there  were  at  least  six  large  provinces,  out  of 
which  sometimes  above  a  hundred  bishops  were 
called  to  a  provincial  council.  Alexander  sum- 
moned near  that  number  to  the  conrlemnation  of 
Arius  before  the  Council  of  Nice.  And  Athana- 
sius  speaks  of  the  same  number  meeting  at  other 
times;  particularly  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  in 
339,  which  heard  and  justified  the  cause  of  Atha- 
nasius  after  his  return  from  banishment,  had  al- 
most an  hundred  bishops  in  it,  which  was  above 
thirty  more  than  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  Libra, 
which  was  but  sixty-nine.  Nor  was  the  Primate 
of  Alessandria's  power  less  than  the  extent  of  his 
jurisdiction  ;  for  he  not  only  ordained  all  his  suflfi-a- 
gan  bishops,  but  had  liberty  to  ordain  presbyters 
and  deacons  in  all  churches  throughout  the  whole 
district. 

"  M.  Basnage  and  Launay  will  have  it  that  he 
had  the  sole  power  of  ordaining,  and  that  not  so 
much  as  a  presbyter  or  deacon  could  be  ordained 
without  him.  Valesius  thinks  his  privilege  was 
rather  that  he  might  ordain  if  he  pleased,  but  not 
that  he  had  the  sole  power  of  ordainino;  presbyters 
and  deacons.  But  either  way  it  was  a  great  priv- 
ilege, and  peculiar  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria; 
for  no  other  metropolitan  pretended  to  the  like 
power  besides  himself." 


CHAPTER  III. 


NO  EPISCOPAL  CONSECRATION  OR  SUCCESSION 
KNOWN  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ALEXANDRIA  FOR 
MORE   THAN   TWO  CENTURIES   AFTER  ST.  MARK. 

The  fullest  statement,  we  possess  with  respect 
to  the  ordinations  in  the  church  at  Alexandria  is 
given  by  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  that  see,  in  "the 
tenth  century.  The  works  of  this  author  were 
translated  into  Latin,  in  part,  by  Selden,  1642, 
and  afterwards  in  full  by  Pococke,  1659. 
Of  this  author,  Mosheim  writes  :  — 
"  Among  the  Arabians  no  author  bears  a  higher 
reputation  than  'Eutychius,  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, whose  annals,  with  several  other  productions 
of  his  pen,  are  still  extant ;  who  cultivated  the 
sciences  of  physic  and  theology  with  the  greatest 
success,  and  cast  a  new  light  upon  them  both  by 
his  excellent  writings." 

THE  PATRIARCH  EUTYCHIUS  (Tenth  Century). 

In  giving  a  history  of  this,  his  own  see,  Euty- 
chius mentions  Mark  the  Evangelist  as  having 
appointed  Hananias  the  first  patriarch,  and  then 
proceeds :  — 


20 


THK  PKIMITIVK  KIRENICOX. 


"  Moreover  he  appointed  twelve  presbyters 
with  Hanaiiias,  who  were  fo  remain  with  the  pa- 
triarch, so  that  when  the  patriarchate  was  vacant 
they  might  elect  one  of  the  twelve  prt'tibyter?, 
upon  whose  head  the  other  eleven  might  place 
their  hands  and  bless  hira  and  create  him  patri- 
arch, and  then  choose  some  excellent  man  and 
appoi'ir  him  presbyter  with  themselves  in  the 
place  of  him  who  was  thus  made  patriarch,  that 
thus  there  might  always  be  Twelve.  Nor  did  this 
custom  respecting  the  presbyters,  namely,  that 
they  should  create  their  |)atriarch  from  the  twelve 
presbyters,  cease  at  Alexandria  until  the  times  of 
Alexander,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  was  of 
the  number  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen. 
But  he  forbade  the  presbyters  to  create  the  patri- 
arch for  the  future,  and  decreed  that  when  the 
patriarch  was  dead  the  bishops  .should  meet  to- 
gether and  ordain  the  patriarch.  Thus,  that  an- 
cient custom,  by  which  the  patriarch  used  to  be 
created  by  the  presbyters,  disappeared,  and  in  its 
place-succeeded  the  ordinance  for  the  creation  of 
the  patriarch  by  the  bishops.'' 

George  Elmacinus,  a  later  Egyptian  writer, 
whose  works  were  translated  by  Erpenius,  con- 
firms this  testimony  of  Eutychius.  We  have, 
however,  the  confirmation  of  his  statements  by 
more  ancient  writers. 


TESTIMONY 


01'  THE  FATHERS. 


21 


SEVERUS  (Tenth  Cfntur\ ). 

Severus,  as  quoted  by  Renaudot,  both  histo- 
rians of  the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  states  that 
after  the  death  of  Theonas  "  the  priests  and  peo- 
ple were  collected  together  at  Alexandria,  and 
laid  their  hands  on  Peter,  his  son  in  the  faith, 
and  disciple,  a  priest,  and  placed  him  in  the  patri- 
archal throne  of  Alexandria,  according  to  the 
command  of  Theonas,  in  the  tenth  year  of  the 
Emperor  Diocletian." 

HILARY,  OR  AMBROSE  (Fouitli  Century). 

The  author  of  a  commentary  on  St.  Paul'3 
Epistles,  by  some  supposed  to  be  Hilary,  and  by 
others  Ambrose,  both  of  the  fourth  century,  on 
Ephesians  iv.  2,  writes  :  — 

"  The  Apostle  calls  Timothy,  created  by  him 
a  presbyter,  a  bishop  (for  the  first  presbyters  were 
called  bishops),  that  when  he  departed  the  one 
next  to  him  might  succeed  him.  Moreover,  in 
Egypt  the  presbyters  [consignant)  confirm,  if  a 
bishop  be  not  present." 

A  CONTEMl'ORARY. 

Another  author,  whose  works  are  printed  with 
those  of  St.  Augustine,  and  supposed  to  be  his 
contemporary,  says  :  — 

"  In  Alexandria,  and  through  the  whole  of 
Egypt,  if  there  is  no  bishop,  a  presbyter  conse- 
crates." 


22 


THE  I'KI.MITIVK  KIKENICOX. 


ST.  JKKOMK  (Fouitli  Cfiiturv). 

The  morit  important  witness,  however,  one 
born  within  tlie  tentuiy  succeeding,  is  St.  Jerome, 
confessedly  tlie  most  learned  of  the  ancients,  who 
in  his  Epistle  to  Evangeliis,  after  quoting  passages 
of  Scripture,  to  show  that  bishops  and  presbyters, 
as  to  their  sacerdotal  character,  are  the  same,  re- 
marks :  — 

"  But  that  afterwards  one  was  chosen  to  be 
over  the  rest ;  this  was  done  to  prevent  schism, 
lest  each  one  drawing  the  Church  after  him  should 
break  it  up.  For  at  Alexandria,  also,  from  Mark 
the  Evangelist  to  the  bishops  Heraclas  and  Dio- 
nysius,  the  presbyters  always  called  one  elected 
among  themselves,  and  placed  in  a  higher  rank, 
their  bishop  ;  just  as  an  army  may  constitute  its 
general,  or  deacons  may  elect  one  of  themselves, 
whom  they  know  to  be  diligent,  and  call  him 
archdeacon.  For  what  does  a  bishop  do,  with 
the  exception  of  ordination,  which  a  presbyter 
may  not  do  ?  " 

It  is  well  known  that  Jerome  teaches  the  same 
origin  for  Episcopacy,  in  his  commentary  on 
Titus  i.  5,  where  he  says:  — 

"  As  the  presbyters,  therefore,  koow  that  they 
are  subject  by  the  custom  of  the  Church  to  him 
who  is  placed  over  them,  so  let  bishops  know 
that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters  more  by 
custom  than  by  any  real  appointment  of  the 


TKSTIMONY  OK  Till-;  l  AllIKKS. 


23 


Lord,  and  that  they  ought  to  govern  the  Church 
along  with  the  presbyters,"  etc. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  antiquity  in  regard 
to  the  ordinations  in  the  patriarchate  of  Alex- 
andria in  the  times  immediately  succeeding  the 
Apostles. 

Do  we  ever  read  of  the  validity  of  the  minis- 
try of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  as  denied  by  the 
rest  of  the  Primitive  Church  ?  If  not,  then  is 
the  Church  of  England  sustained  in  her  course 
in  this  respect  by  primitive  precedent,  and  those 
who  deny  the  validity  of  presbyterian  orders,  im- 
pugn the  action  of  this  Church,  and  of  the  Prim- 
itive Church  likewise.  Their  theory  is  a  modern 
innovation. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


TESTIMONY   OF  ENGLISH  REFORMERS. 

This  custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  was 
well  known  to  the  English  Reformers  and  Revis- 
ers, and  is  conceded  by  the  ablest  modern  writers. 

AltCUBlSHUI"  WHITGItT  (died  1604). 

This  writer,  in  his  "Answer  to  the  Admonition  " 
of  Cartwright,  which  was  revised  and  approved 
by  Archbishop  Parker,  Bishops  Cox,  Cooper,  and 
others,  and  according  to  Strype,  "  may  be  es- 
teemed and  applied  to  as  one  of  the  public  books 
of  the  Church  of  England  concerning  her  profes- 
sion and  principles,  and  as  being  of  the  like  au- 
thority in  respect  to  its  worship  and  government, 
in  opposition  to  the  Disciplinarians,  as  Bishop 
Jewel's  'Apology  and  Defense,'  in  respect  to  the 
Reformation  and  doctrine  of  it,  in  opposition  to 
the  Papists."  while  contending  for  the  primitive 
origin  of  Episcopacy,  does  not  deny  the  state- 
ments of  Jerome  with  regard  to  Alexandria. 
They  were  familiar  to  his  mind,  as  they  were  to 
all  the  divines  of  that  period.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  222, 
he  writes  :  — 


TESTIMONY  OF  ENGLISH  REKOKMERS. 


25 


*'  The  same  Hierome,  in  his  'Epistles  ad  Evag-.,'' 
teacheth  that  the  cause  that  one  was  chosen  among 
the  bishops  to  rule  over  the  rest  was  to  meet  with 
schisms,  lest  every  one  according  to  his  own  fancy 
should  tear  i»i  pieces  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and 
says  farther,  that  in  Alexandria,"  etc.  He  then 
quotes  the  passage  referred  to. 

Vol.  ii.  p.  251,  Whitgift  writes:  — 

"  Every  bishop  is  a  priest,  but  every  priest  hath 
not  the  name  and  title  of  a  bishop,  in  that  mean- 
ing that  Jerome  in  this  place  taketh  the  name  of 
bishop.  For  his  words  be  these  :  '  In  Alexan- 
dria, from  Mark  the  Evangelist,'  etc.  .  .  .  '  Nei- 
ther shall  you  find  this  word  episcopus  commonly 
used  but  for  that  priest  that  is  in  degree  over  and 
above  the  rest,  notwithstanding  episcopus  be  often- 
times called  presbyter,  because  presbyter  is  the 
more  general  name,'  "  etc. 

As  this  combined  testimony  of  Whitgift,  Par- 
ker, Cox,  Cooper,  and  others,  is  of  such  value,  we 
give  further  extracts  :  — 

"  It  is  plain  that  any  one  certain  form  or  kind 
of  external  government,  perpetually  to  be  ob- 
served, is  nowhere  in  the  Scripture  prescribed  to 
the  Church.  .  .  .  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  best 
writers  ;  neither  do  I  know  any  learned  man  of  a 
contrary  judgment."  —  Whitgift  (vol.  iii.  p.  215). 

"  One  church  is  not  bound  of  necessity  in  all 
things  to  follow  another;  only  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  so  arrogant  and  proud  to  challenge  that 
prerogative  "  (p.  317). 


26 


THE  PliLMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


"  The  doctrine  taught  and  professed  by  our 
bishops  at  this  day  is  much  more  perfect,  and 
sounder  than  it  commonly  was  in  any  age  after 
the  Apostles'  time  "  (ii.  p.  471). 

What  Whitgift,  Parker,  Cox,  and  Cooper 
thought  of  the  "  Via  Media  "  may  here  be  learned. 
When  Cartwright  charged  the  Church  of  England 
with  a  closer  agreement  with  the  Papists  than 
with  the  Reformed  churches,  Whitgift  replied, — 

"  Wherein  do  we  agree  with  the  Pajjists  ?  or 
wherein  do  we  differ  from  the  Reformed  churches  ? 
With  these  we  have  all  points  of  doctrine  and 
substance  common ;  from  the  other  we  dissent,  in 
the  most  part  both  of  doctrine  and  ceremonies. 
From  what  spirit  come  these  bold  and  untrue 
speeches  ?  "  (vol.  ii.  p.  472.) 

"  Beware  of  an  ambitious  morosity,  and  take 
heed  of  a  new  popedom.  .  .  .  You  may  not 
bind  us  to  follow  any  particular  church,  neither 
ought  you  to  consent  to  any  such  new  servitude  " 
(p.  454). 

BULLIXGER'S  "  DECADKS." 

We  give  an  extract  from  the  "Decades"  of  this 
learned  foreigner,  inasmuch  as  his  writings  were 
indorsed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift.  There  may 
not  have  been  an  entire  agreement  between  the 
two  authors  on  all  points  concerning  church  gov- 
ernment, but,  at  the  same  time,  what  modern  ex- 
clusive Episcopal  writer  would  have  commended 


TESTIMONY  OF  BULLINGER. 


27 


the  "  Decades  "  to  the  study  of  the  clergy,  without 
reservation  ?  We  have  in  this  act  of  Whitgift 
an  evidence  of  the  confidence  entertained  by  the 
English  Divines  in  their  Continental  co-workers. 

Henry  BuUinger  was  preacher  of  the  Cathe- 
dral of  Zurich  from  1531  to  1574.  He  enter- 
tained the  English  exiles  under  Mary.  Such 
was  his  influence  that  he  was  appealed  to  as 
umpire  in  the  Vestiarian  controversy ;  and  his 
decision,  that  the  use  of  vestments  was  scriptural 
and  proper,  went  far  to  settle  the  question. 

Whitgift,  in  1586,  issued  the  following  archi- 
episcopal  order  :  — 

"  Every  minister  having  cure  .  .  .  shall, 
before  the  second  day  of  February  next,  provide 
a  Bible,  and  Bullinger's  'Decades'  in  Latin  or 
English,  and  a  paper  book,  and  shall  every  day 
read  over  one  chapter  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  note  the  principal  contents  thereof  in  his 
paper  book,  and  shall  every  week  read  over  one 
sermon  in  said  '  Decades,'  and  note  likewise  the 
chief  matters  therein  contained  in  said  paper." 

Bullinger,  in  his  fifth  Decade,  third  sermon, 
writes  :  — 

But  in  the  order  of  bishops  and  elders  from 
the  beginning  there  was  singular  humility,  charity, 
and  concord  ;  no  contention,  no  strife  for  prerog- 
ative, or  titles,  or  dignity  ;  for  all  acknowledged 
themselves  to  be  ministers  of  one  Master,  coequal 
in  all  things  touching  office  or  charge.    He  made 


28 


THE  I'laMlTlVE  ElUEiNlCON. 


them  unequal  not  in  office,  but  in  gifts,  by  the 
excellency  of  gifts.  ...  In  process  of  time 
all  things  of  ancient  soundness,  humility,  and 
simplicity  vanished  away;  while  some  things 
are  turned  upside  down;  some  things  either  of 
their  own  accord  were  out  of  use,  or  else  were 
taken  away  by  deceit :  some  things  are  added  to. 
Verily  not  many  ages  after  the  death  of  the  Apos- 
tles there  was  seen  a  far  other  hierarchy  (or  gov- 
ernment) of  the  Churcli  tlian  was  from  the  begin- 
ning; although  those  beginnings  seem  to  be  more 
tolerable  than  at  this  day  all  of  this  same  order 
are.  St.  Hierome  saith,  '  In  time  past  churches 
were  governed  with  the  common  council  and  ad- 
vice of  the  elders :  afterward  it  was  decreed  that 
one  of  the  elders,  being  chosen,  should  be  set 
over  the  others  :  unto  whom  the  whole  care  of 
the  Church  should  pertain,  and  that  the  seeds 
of  schism  should  be  taken  away.'  Thus  much 
he  :  In  every  city  and  country,  therefore,  he  that 
was  most  excellent  was  placed  above  the  rest. 
His  office  was  to  be  superintendent,  and  to  have 
the  oversight  of  the  minister,  and  of  the  whole 
flock.  He  had  not  (as  we  eve6  now  understand 
out  of  Cyprian's  words)  dominion  over  his  fel- 
lows in  office,  or  other  elders;  but,  as  the  Consul 
in  the  Senate-house  was  placed  to  demand  and 
gather  together  the  voices  of  the  Senators,  and  to 
defend  the  laws  and  privileges,  and  to  be  careful 
lest  there  should  arise  factions  among  the  Sena- 


TESTIMONY  OF  BULLINCxER. 


29 


tors,  even  so  no  other  was  the  office  of  a  bishop 
in  the  Church;  in  all  other  things  he  was  but 
equal  with  the  other  ministers.  But  had  not 
the  ariogancy  of  the  ministers  and  ambition  of 
the  bishops  in  the  times  that  followed  further 
increased,  we  would  not  further  speak  against 
them.  And  St.  Hierome  affirmeth  that  '  That 
preferment  of  bishops  sprang  not  by  God's  ordi- 
nance, but  by  the  ordinance  of  men.'  " 

In  the  second  sermon,  Bullinger  states  :  — 
"  St.  Hierome  judgeth  rightly,  saying,  that  by 
the  custom  of  man,  and  not  by  the  authority  of 
God,  some  one  of  the  elders  should  be  placed 
over  the  rest,  and  called  a  bishop  ;  whereas  of  old 
time  an  elder  or  minister  and  a  bishop  were  of 
equal  honor,  power,  and  dignity." 

He  then  refers  to  the  letter  to  Evangelus  in 
which  Jerome  alludes  to  the  Church  of  Alexan- 
dria. 

If  Whitgift  had  regarded  episcopal  government 
as  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  church,  he  would, 
reasonably,  have  guarded  his  readers  against  llie 
statements  of  Bullinger  on  this  point,  just  as  the 
American  House  of  Bishops,  when  recommend- 
ing "Doddridge's  Commentary"  to  the  perusal 
of  candidates  for  orders,  directed  attention  at  the 
same  time  To  this  author's  diflferent  view^  with  re- 
spect to  church  government. 


30 


THE  PIUMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


Dlt.  JOHN  RAINOLDS. 

There  is  a  striking  similarity  in  the  statement 
of  Bullinger,  to  that  given  by  Dr.  Rainolds,  Pro- 
fessor of  Divinity  at  Oxford,  as  to  the  origin  of 
Episcopacy. 

Archbishop  Usher  presented  it  to  the  public  in 
1641,  in  a  Tract  entitled,  "  The  Judgment  of  Dr. 
Rainolds,  touching  the  Original  of  Episcopacy, 
more  largely  confirmed  out  of  Antiquity."  As 
both  Rainolds  and  Usher  had  read  all  the  Fa- 
thers, and  were  respectively  esteemed  the  most 
learned  men  of  their  times,  we  have  no  account  of 
this  matter  to  which  credence  can  be  more  im- 
plicitly given.  What  Augustine  said  of  Jerome, 
may  be  justly  applied  to  these  profound  scholars  : 
"  What  tliey  were  ignorant  of,  no  man  knew." 
The  following  is  Rainolds'  statement :  — 

"  Presbyters  were  constituted  bishops  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  they  might  superintend  and 
feed  the  flock  ;  and  that  this  might  be  more  effec- 
tually accomplished  by  their  united  counsel  and 
consent,  they  were  accustomed  to  meet  together 
in  one  company,  and  to  elect  one  as  president  of 
the  assembly,  and  moderator  of  the  proceedings  ; 
whom  Christ  in  the  Revelation  denominates  the 
angel  of  the  church,  and  to  whom  he  writes 
those  things  which  he  meant  him  to  signify  to 
the  others.  And  this  is  the  person  whom  the 
Fathers  afterwards,  in  the  Primitive  Church,  de- 
nominated the  bishop."    (Conference,  ad  Hart, 


TESTIMONY  OF  RAINOLDS. 


81 


cap.  iv.  p.  47).  The  tract  may  be  fomid  in  Ush- 
er's Works,  vol.  V.  p.  75.  In  this  connection 
we  give  the  important  letter  of  Dr.  Rainolds  to 
Sir  Francis  KnoUys,  Lord  Treasurer  of  England, 
who  wrote  to  inquire  whether  Dr.  Bancroft  was 
right  when  he  asserted,  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  "  that 
bishops  were  superior  governors  over  their  breth- 
ren, by  God's  ordinance,  i.  e.,  jure  divino  To 
this  Rainolds  replied,  in  what  is  the  oldest  de- 
fense on  record  of  moderate  primitive  Episcopacy, 
against  its  first  Protestant  High  Church  champion 
(though  Bancroft  was  far  from  holding  the  preva- 
lent exclusive  view)  :  "  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that 
there  ought  to  be  no  difference  between  them," 
etc.,  ..."  another  thing  to  say  that  by  the  Word 
of  God  there  is  no  difference  betwixt  them  but  by 
the  order  and  custom  of  the  Church,"  which  St. 
Austin  saith  in  effect  himself.  .  .  . 

"  When  Harding,  the  Papist,  alleged  these  very 
witnesses  to  prove  the  opinion  of  bishops  and 
priests  being  the  same,  according  to  Scripture, 
to  be  heresy,  our  learned  countryman  of  good 
memory.  Bishop  Jewel,  cited  to  the  contrary 
Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  .Jerome,  and  St.  Austin 
himself,  concluding  his  answer  with  these  words  : 
"  All  these  and  other  more  holy  fathers,  with  St. 
Paul,  for  thus  saying,  by  Harding's  advice,  must 
be  held  for  heretics." 

Michael  Medina,  a  man  of  great  account  in 
the  Council  of  Trent,  more  ingenuous  therein  than 


32 


THE  PRIMITITE  EIREKICOS. 


many  other  Papists,  affirmed  not  only  the  former 
ancient  writers  alleged  by  Bishop  Jewel,  but  also 
another  Jerome,  Theodoret,  Primasius,  Sedulius, 
Theophylact,  who  were  of  the  same  mind,  .  .  . 
with  whom  agree  likewise  CEcunienius,  and  An- 
selmus.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  another  An- 
selmus,  and  Gregory,  and  Gratian,  and  after  them 
how  many,  it  being  once  enrolled  in  the  canon  law 
for  sound  and  Catholic  doctrine,  and  thereupon 
taught  publicly  by  learned  men,  ail  which  do  bear 
witness  against  Dr.  Bancroft  of  the  point  in  ques- 
tion, that  it  was  not  condemned  for  a  heresy  by  the 
general  consent  of  the  whole  Church.  .  .  .  Where- 
to it  may  be  added,  that  they  also  who  have  labored 
about  the  reforming  of  the  Church,  these  five 
hundred  years,  hare  taught  that  all  pastors,  be  they 
entitled  bishops  or  priests,  have  equal  authority 
and  power  by  God's  Word.  First,  the  Waldenses, 
next  Massilius  Patavinus,  then  Wickliffe  and  his 
scholars,  afterwards  Huss  ;  last  of  all  Luther, 
Calvin,  Brentius,  Bullinger,  Musculus,  and  others, 
who  might  be  reckoned  particularly  in  great  num- 
ber such  as  were  with  us ;  both  Bishops  Jewel 
and  Pilkington,  and  the  Queen's  Professors  of 
Divinity  in  our  Universities,  Drs.  Humphrey  and 
Whittaker,  and  other  learned  men.  Bradford, 
Lambert,  Fox,  and  Fulke,  do  consent  therein  ;  so 
in  foreign  nations  all  whom  I  have  read  treating 
of  this  matter,  and  many  more  whom  I  have  not 
read. 


TESTIMONY  OF  RAINOLDS. 


33 


"  But  why  do  I  speak  of  particular  persons  ?  It 
is  the  common  judgment  of  the  Reformed 
.Churches  of  Helvetia,  Savoy,  France,  Scotland, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Poland,  the  Low  Countries, 
and  our  own.  I  hope  Dr.  Bancroft  will  not  say 
that  all  these  have  approved  that  for  sound  doc- 
trine which  was  condemned  by  the  general  con- 
sent of  the  whole  Church  for  heresy  in  a  most 
flourishing  time.  I  hope  he  will  acknowledge 
that  he  was  overseen  when  he  avouched  the  supe- 
riority which  bishops  have  among  us  over  the 
clergy  to  be  God's  own  ordinance." 

This  testimony  of  Rainolds,  to  a  point  conge- 
nial to  the  one  under  consideration,  it  would  seem' 
were  conclusive  as  to  the  view  of  the  Church  of 
England  with  respect  to  the  origin  of  Episcopacy. 
The  only  reply  which  is  given,  is  that  "  Rainolds 
was  a  Puritan."  A  strict  conformist  to  the 
Church  of  England  all  his  days,  and  in  his  last 
hours  a  recipient  of  the  Communion  according  to 
its  rites,  Rainolds  was  selected  by  King  James" to 
present  the  demands  of  the  Reforming  party  of 
the  Church.  The  changes  he  desired  were  mainly 
those  made  by  Bishop  White  in  our  American 
Prayer-Book.  To  an  impartial  student  no  Chris- 
tian name  in  history  is  more  worthy  than  this 
divine,  who  could  not  be  tempted  by  an  episco- 
pate offered  him  by  his  sovereign  ;  who  was  long 
the  revered  instructor  of  the  English  clergy,  and 
honored  in  being  the  tutor  of  Richard  Hooker; 
3 


34 


Till",  I'l;lMmVE  KIRliXrCDN. 


a  man  who,  far  in  advance  of  his  age,  sought  by 
moderate  counsels  to  avert  the  coming  storm,  and 
whose  last  legacy  to  the  Church  was  the  standard 
English  version  of  the  Bible,  made  by  his  mon- 
arch at  his  earnest  request.  The  soul  of  this  true 
evangelical  churchman  went  to  its  reward  while 
appropriately  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  this 
greatest  surviving  monument  of  the  Reformation. 

DR.  ANDREW  WILLF.T  (died  1621). 

This  writer,  for  his  acquirements,  was  called  "  a 
miracle  of  learning."  He  was  chaplain  to  Prince 
Henry  and  Prebend  of  Ely.  Bishop  Hall  includes 
him  amoni^  the  clergy  of  England,  who  were  "  the 
world's  wonder."  His  greatest  work  is  the  "  Syn- 
opsis Papismir 

This  work,  dedicated  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
afterward  to  James  I.,  passed  through  five  editions 
under  the  royal  license.  In  1634  an  edition  was 
issued  "  by  the  authority  of  His  Majesty's  royal 
letters-patent,"  which  state  "  that  it  hath  been 
seen  and  allowed  by  the  Lords  the  Reverend 
Bishops,  and  hath  also  ever  since  been  in  great 
esteem  in  both  Universities;  and  also  much  de- 
sired by  all  the  learned,  both  of  our  clergy  and 
laity,  throughout  our  dominions."  From  this 
important  work  we  quote  largely.  Vol.  iii.  p. 
58,  Dr.  Willet  writes  :  "  To  the  ecclesiastical 
policy  in  the  advancing  of  the  dignity  of  the 
bishops  these  things  (of  human  appointment)  do 


TESTIMONY  OF  WH-LET. 


8.^ 


pertain.  First  of  all,  St.  Hierome  saitli  of  contir- 
mation  committed  only  to  bishops,  '  Know  that 
this  observation  is  rather  for  the  honor  of  their 
priesthood  than  by  the  necessity  of  any  law.' 

"  Secondly,  the  Council  of  Aquisgrane  (cap.  8) 
saith,  that  the  ordination  and  consecration  of 
ministers  is  now  reserved  to  the  chief  minister 
only  for  authority's  sake. 

"  Fourthly,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church, 
which,  in  time  past,  Hierome  saith,  was  commit- 
ted to  the  Senate  or  College  of  Presbyters,  was 
-  afterwards,  to  avoid  schism,  devolved  to  the 
Bishop.  And  of  this  Senate  mention  is  made  in 
the  Decrees.  St,  Hierome  saith  :  "  At  Alexan- 
dria, from  the  Evangelist  Mark,  down  to  the 
bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters 
always  gave  the  name  of  bishop  to  one  whom 
tliey  elected  from  themselves,  and  placed  in  a 
higher  degree  ;  in  the  same  way  as  an  army  may 
create  its  general,  or  the  deacons  should  choose 
an  industrious  man  whom  they  make  their  arch- 
deacon. (Hierome  ad  Evang.)  So  it  should  seem 
that  lite  verij  eleclioii  of  a  bishop  in  Ihosc  flaijs, 
ivilhoitt  any  other  circumstances,  was  his  ordina- 
tion^ 

Speaking  of  the  Greek  Church,  on  p.  72,  he 
writes  :  "  Though  they  yielded  the  supremacy  to 
the  bishop  as  the  chief,  yet  the  presbyters  were 
joined  with  them  in  the  regiment  of  the  Church  ; 
the  sole  administration  of  the  keys  was  not  in  the 


86 


l  ili;  I'IM.MI  I'lVE  KIRENtCON. 


bishop.  The  same,  also,  was  the  custom  of  the 
South  Church,  as  Jerome  writeth,  how  in  Alex- 
andria, from  Mark  the  Evangelist  unto  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,  '  The  presbyters  did  call  one 
chosen  from  amongst  them,  and  placed  in  an 
higlier  degree  their  bishop.'  (Hierome  ad  Evang.) 
By  tlie  which  it  appeareth,  that  the  College  of  the 
Presbyters  did  elect  and  choose  their  bishop,  and 
he  was  a  prime  man  among  them  ;  but  the  other 
were  not  excluded.  Ambrose  testifieth  as  much 
of  the  custom  of  the  Egyptian  Church  :  '  The 
first  presbyters  were  called  bishops,  and  the  first 
removing,  the  next  succeeded.  In  Egypt  the 
presbyters,  the  bishop  not  being  present,  did  con- 
firm ;  but  because  the  next  presbyters  were  found 
unworthy  to  hold  the  primacy  or  first  place,  the 
manner  was  changed  by  the  provision  of  a  council, 
that  not  order,  but  merit  and  worthiness  should 
make  a  bishop'  (in  4th  ad  Ephes.).  It  seemeth 
then  that  the  custom  of  the  Egyptian  Church  at 
tlie  first  was  to  make  the  bishop  only  the  prime 
or  first  man  of  the  presbytery  ;  the  change  that 
followed  was  by  synodical  constitutions.  And 
some  evidence  yet  remaineth  of  that  ancient 
ecclesiastical  government  to  this  day  in  the  Ethi- 
opic  Church,  where  the  patriarch  hath  always 
twelve  ecclesiastical  persons  his  assistants,  with 
whom  he  communicateth  touching  ecclesiastical 
affairs." 

Dr.  Wi^let,  on  p.  53,  quotes  St.  Ambrose  as  say- 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILLET. 


37 


ing  :  "  He  doth  place  the  ordination  of  deacon 
after  a  bishop.  Why  ?  Because  there  is  one 
ordination  of  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  for.  both  of 
them  is  a  minister,  yet  the  Bishop  is  first  among- 
the  priests." 

"  St.  Chrysostom  useth  the  same  reason :  '  There 
is  almost  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a 
priest,  because  that  unto  priests  the  care  of  the 
Church  is  committed,  and  that  which  the  Apostle 
said  of  bishops  doth  agree  unto  priests.' 

Page  47,  he  writes :       I  come  now  to  deliver 

our  own  opinion  The  distinction  of 

bishops  and  priests,  as  it  i.s  now  received,  cannot 
be  directly  proved  out  of  Scripture  ;  yet  it  is  very 
necessary  for  the  policy  of  the  Church  to  avoid 
schism,  and  to  preserve  it  in  unity.  Of  this  judg- 
ment. Bishop  Jewel  against  Harding,  showeth  both 
Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome  to  have  been 
(Defens.  Apolg.  p.  248).  And  amongst  the  rest, 
St.  Jerome  thus  wrileth  :  '  That  the  Apostle 
teacheth,  evidently,  that  bishops  and  priests  were 
the  same.  Yet  he  holdeth  this  distinction  to  be 
necessary  for  the  government  of  the  Church. 
That  one  afterward  was  chosen  to  be  set  over  the 
rest ;  it  was  done  to  be  a  remedy  against  schism  ' 
(ad  Evang.).  To  this  opinion,  St.  Jerome  subscrib- 
eth  —  Bishop  Jewel  in  the  place  before  quoted, 
and  another  most  reverend  prelate  of  bur  Church, 
(Bishop  Whitgift)  —  in  these  words  :  '  I  know 
these  names  to  be  confounded  in  the  Scriptures , 


S8 


I  HK  I'RIMITIVE  EIRKN'ICOX. 


but  1  tspeak  according  to  the  manner  and  custom 
of  the  Church  ever  since  the  Apostles'  time ' 
(Defen.  Answ.  Admonit,  p.  383).  Which  saying 
is  agreeable  to  that  of  St.  Augustine  (Epist.  xix. 
ad  Hieron.):  'According  to  the  names  of  honor, 
which  the  use  or  custom  of  the  Church  hath  ob- 
tained, a  bishop  is  greater  than  a  priest.'  So  that 
Auoustine  himself,  who  was  no  Arian,doth  found 
this  distinction  rather  upon  ancient  custom  than 
Scripture."  Page  52,  "  Michael  Medina,  a  Papist, 
thinketh  that  both  Jerome,  Ainbro?e,  Augustine, 
Chrysostom,  were  in  the  same  heresy  with  Arius. 
It  may  easily  be  disproved.  Firstly,  seeing  Augus- 
tine with  the  rest  held  Arius  to  be  a  heretic,  how 
could  they  condemn  that  for  heresy  in  another 
which  they  themselves  maintained?  Secondly, 
it  is  not  like  that  the  Church,  which  had  con- 
demned that  for  heresy  in  Arius,  would  tolerate  it 
in  the  rest.  Thirdly,  there  is  great  difference  be- 
tween Arius'  opinion  and  theirs,  for  he  would  have 
no  diti'erence  at  all  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest. 
The  Fathers  allowed  a  difference,  holding  it  to  be 
profitable  for  the  peace  of  the  Church  ;  they  only 
affirmed,  that  this  distinction  was  rather  author- 
ized by  the  ancient  practice  of  the  Church,  than 
by  any  direct  place  of  Scripture." 

We  have  here  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Willet  with 
respect  to  the  view  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  regard  to  episcopal  ordination  ("  our  own  opin- 
ion "),  as  he  terms  it,  expressed  with  the  approval 


TESTIMONV  Of  WIM.KT. 


39 


of  Elizabeth  and  James,  and  of  tlie  bishops  and 
universities  of  England.  He  (juotes,  as  sustain- 
ing the  same  opinion,  Bishop  Jewel's  "  Apol- 
ogy," a  standard  authority,  and  also  Bishop  Whit- 
gift's  "  Answer  to  the  Admonition,"  making  the 
assertion  during  the  lifetime  of  the  latter  author. 
As  no  other  writer  has  discoursed  more  clearly, 
and  more  ably  on  these  topics  which  so  deeply 
concern  the  peace  of  all  churches,  than  Dr.  Wil- 
let,  in  his  "  Synopsis,"  we  give  another  quota- 
tion from  p.  55  :  "  Although  it  cannot  be  denied 
but  that  the  government  of  bishops,  according  to 
the  use  of  the  primitive  Church,  is  very  profitable 
for  the  preserving  of  unity,  yet  dare  we  not  con- 
demn the  churches  of  Geneva,  Helvetia,  Ger- 
many, and  Scotland,  that  have  received  another 
form  of  ecclesiastical  government,  as  the  Papists 
proudly  affirm  all  churches  which  have  not  such 
bishops  as  theirs  are,  to  be  no  churches.  Where- 
fore I  cannot  conclude  that  this  special  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government  is  absolutely  prescribed 
in  the  Word  ;  for  then  all  those  churches  which 
have  not  that  prescript  form,  whether  of  bishops 
or  others,  should  be  condemned  as  erroneous 
churches.  So  then  here  is  the  difference  between 
our  adversaries  the  Papists  and  us.  They  say 
that  it  is  of  necessity  to  salvation  to  be  subject  to 
the  Pope,  and  to  bishops  and  archbishops  under 
him,  as  necessarily  prescribed  in  the  Word ;  but 
so  do  not  our  bishops  and  archbishops,  which  is 


40 


TUi:  riMMlTIVE  EIREXICON. 


a  notable  difference  between  the  bishops  of  the 
popish  church  and  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 
(Defens.  Answ.  Admonition,  p.  382). 

"  Wherefore,  as  we  condemn  not  those  Reformed 
Churches  which  have  retained  another  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government,  so  neither  are  they  to 
censure  our  Church,  for  holding  still  the  ancient 
regiment  of  bishops,  purged  from  the  ambitious 
and  superstitious  inventions  of  the  popish  prel- 
acy. Let  every  church  use  tliat  form  which  best 
fitteth  their  state ;  in  external  matters  every 
church  is  free,  not  one  bound  to  the  prescription 
of  another,  so  they  measure  themselves  by  the 
will  of  the  Word,  for  if  any  church  shall  seem  to 
prescribe  unto  another  in  those  things  wherein 
they  are  left  free,  that  saying  of  the  Apostle  may 
be  fitly  applied  against  them  (1  Cor.  xiv.  36),  '  Did 
the  Word  of  God  spring  from  you,  or  came  it 
unto  you  only?'  God  may  give  unto  one  church 
wisdom  out  of  the  Word,  to  know  what  is  best 
for  their  state,  as  well  as  to  another.  And  so  I 
conclude  this  point  with  that  saying  of  St.  Augus- 
tine to  the  Donatist  bishops:  '  Hold  that  which 
you  hold  :  you  have  your  sheep,  I  have  my  sheep ; 
be  not  troublesome  to  my  sheep,  I  am  not  trouble- 
some to  yours'  (Exposit.  2,  in  Psal.  xxi.).  So 
may  we  say  to  our  sisters,  the  Reformed  Churches, 
and  they  likewise  to  us :  Let  them  hold  that  gov- 
ernment they  have ;  we  do  not  molest  them  in 
their  course,  neither  let  them  molest  us  in  ours.'' 


TPSTIMOXV  OF  WILLET. 


41 


As  we  are  defending  in  this  work  the  practice 
of  the  Church  of  England  for  one  hundred  years, 
in  allowing  the  validity  of  presbyterian  ordina- 
tion, we  may  be  excused  if  we  quote  further  from 
this  work  of  Dr.  Willet,  which  has  the  imprima- 
tur of  the  sovereign  heads  of  the  Church  of 
England,  the  bishops  and  the  universities,  and 
which  has  more  fully  and  satisfactorily  treated 
of  this  subject  than  any  other  work  of  that  period. 

Volume  vi.  p.  368,  Dr.  Willet  writes  :  "  As  the 
one  hundred  and  eleventh  error,  the  Papists  hold 
that  they  are  neither  priests  nor  deacons  which 
are  not  ordained  of  bishops.  Neither  is  it  true 
that  there  are  no  ministers  but  by  the  ordination 
of  bishops,  for  this  were  to  condemn  all  those 
Reformed  Churches  of  Helvetia,  Belgia,  Geneva, 
with  others  which  have  not  received  the  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government.  Undoubtedly  where 
godly  bishops  are,  there  no  ordination  is  to  be 
had  without  them,  as  in  the  Church  of  England  ; 
but  every  church  having  not  the  same  office,  bur 
others  equivalent  or  correspondent  thereunto,  hafli 
full  authority  in  itself  to  ordain  ministers  in  such 
order  and  manner  as  the  Church  hath  received, 
agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God.  So  that  we  doubt 
not  but  that  all  the  Reformed  Churches  profess- 
ing the  gospel  have  true  and  lawful  ministers, 
though  they  observe  not  all  the  same  manner  in 
the  election  and  ordaining  them.  And  this  is  the 
general  consent  of  the  churches  themselves," 


42 


THE  PRrMITlVF.  KIREXICON. 


He  then  quotes,  among  others,  the  "  Anglican 
Confession  :  *'  "  We  say  that  the  minister  ought 
lawfully,  duly,  and  orderly  to  be  preferred  to  that 
office  of  the  Church  of  God."'  It  may  be  re- 
marked here  That  in  these  words  we  have  an  au- 
thorized interpretation  of  the  Nineteenth  Article. 

"  This,  then,  is  the  judgment  of  the  Reformed 
Churches,  —  that  every  church  is  not  tied  to  the 
same  manner  of  ordination  of  ministers,  so  that 
it  be  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God;  but  accord- 
ing to  this  rule  every  church  may  make  choice  of 
that  form  and  order  which  is  most  agreeable  to 
their  state,  so  that  when  the  calling  of  bishops  is 
received,  by  them  ministers  must  enter;  where 
there  are  none,  the  calling  of  the  church  must  be 
followed.    Our  arguments  and  reasons  are  these: 

"  First,  out  of  Scripture,  Acts  xiii.  3,  cei"tain 
prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch  lay  hands  upon 
Paul  and  Barnabas.  The  Rhemists  gather  here- 
upon "that  they  were  ordered,  admitted,  and  con- 
secrated by  them."  Annot.  in  liunc  locum  (which 
we  say  not,  but  they  were  onlv  sent  out  to  the 
execution  of  their  office,  being  before  chosen  of 
the  Spirit) ;  but  hence  it  followeth,  that  as  at  An- 
tioch, there  being  no  Apostles,  but  only  prophets 
and  teachers,  to  lay  hands  upon  Paul,  the  rest  did 
it ;  so  those  churches  where  there  are  no  bishops, 
the  right  of  ordaining  ministers  may  be  executed 
by  others  lawfully  appointed  of  the  Church. 

"  If  this  were  not  so,  these  inconveniences 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILLET. 


43 


would  ensue  :  Firstly,  that  all  these  Reformed 
Churches  should  have  no  true  ministers,  being 
without  episcopal  ordination.  Secondly,  that 
they  must  either  be  denied  to  be  churches,  or  else 
a  true  church  may  be  without  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation, which  is  in  nowise  to  be  granted.  Third- 
ly, that  those  excellent  men,  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Calvin,  with  others,  extraordinarily  raised  up  of 
God  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  should 
not  have  been  true  ministers  because  they  entered 
not  by  that  ordination." 

On  p.  376,  quoting  again  from  Jerome,  he  adds  : 
"  To  this  it  is  further  added  by  a  reverend  learned 
man,  now  a  bishyp  of  our  Church;  so  at  length 
l)y  custom  presbyters  were  utterly  excluded  from 
all  advice  and  counsel,  whereof  Ambrose  com- 
plaineth,  and  bishops  only  intermeddled  with  the 
regiment  of  the  Church.  This  manner  of  subjec- 
tion in  presbyters,  and  prelation  in  bishops,  grew 
only  in  continuance  of  time,  and  not  by  any  ordi- 
nance of  Christ  or  his  Apostles.  See  more  of  this 
matter  on  difference  of  ministers."  This  we  have 
before  presented. 

Thus  we  may  see  plainly  and  unmistakably, 
what  was  the  view  of  the  Church  of  England  on 
the  point  of  ordination,  down  to  the  year  1634, 
the  very  year  in  which  Archbishop  Laud,  first  of 
Protestants,  broke  the  unity  of  the  Church  by  re- 
questing the  English  Ambassador  at  Paris  to 
withdraw  from   the  Presbyterian  ministrations. 


44 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


For,  previous  to  this  event,  intercommunion  be- 
tween all  the  Protestant  bodies  was  on  terms  of 
entire  equality,  with  no  disturbance  on  the  point 
of  church  government.  This  was  clearly  estab- 
lished at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  1618,  by  the  recep- 
tion of  the  Holy  Communion  by  Bishop  Carleton, 
Drs.-  Hall,  Davenant,  and  Ward,  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  deputies, 
at  the  hands  of  Dr.  Bogermann,  the  Presbyterian 
moderator.  "  There  is  no  place  on  earth  like  the 
Synod  of  Dort ;  no  place  where  I  should  so  much 
like  to  dwell,"  said  Dr.  Hall,  afterwards  the  dis- 
tinguished Bishop  of  Norwich.  Willet's  "  Syn- 
opsis," which  is  sustained  by  the  statements  of 
Jewel's  "  Apology,"  and  Whitgift's  "  Answer," 
establishes  clearly  the  moderate  and  Catholic 
principles  of  the  Church  of  England.  Thus  the 
doctrine  and  the  practice  of  this  Church  are  seen 
to  be  in  full  accordance  with  each  other,  as  both 
were  consonant  with  the  principles  and  practice 
of  the  Primitive  Church. 


CllAi'TKll  V. 


WRITERS   OF   THE   f^E VENTEENTH  CENTLllY. 

We  have  given  proof  that  tlie  revisers  of  the 
standards  of  the  Church  of  England  under  Eliza- 
beth and  her  most  prominent  divines,  were  ac- 
quainted with  the  historical  fact  that  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,  while  maintaining  episcopal  gov- 
ernment, was  without  episcopal  consecration  and 
succession  for  two  centuries,  from  the  time  of  its 
founder,  Mark  the  Evangelist.  This  Church,  fol- 
lowing primitive  customs,  allowed  such  ordination 
to  be  valid. 

To  strengthen  our  position,  we  proceed  to  give 
the  concessions  of  distinguished  later  divines  — 
two  of  the  seventeenth  and  four  of  the  present 
century. 

ARCHBISHOP    USHER     (died  1655). 

For  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  we 
present  Archbishop  Usher  as  a  witness  of  the 
views  of  the  divines  of  that  period,  himself  confess- 
edly the  most  learned  of  them  all.  As  a  man  who 
had  read  all  the  fathers,  Greek  and  Tiatin,  Usher 
could  not  fail  to  be  acquainted  with  the  facts  here 


46 


THE  PKIMlilVE  EIKEXICON. 


made  prominent.  Richard  Baxter,  in  his  "  Life  " 
(p.  206),  writes  of  Usher:  "  I  aslied  him  also,  in 
his  judgment,  about  the  validity  of  presbyterian 
ordination,  which  he  asserted,  and  told  me  that 
the  king  asked  him,  at  the  Isle  of  Wight,  '  where 
he  found  in  antiquity  that  presbyters  alone  or- 
dained any.'  And  that  he  answered,  '  I  can  show 
your  majesty  more  even,  where  presbyters  alone 
successively  ordained  bishops,'  and  instanced  in 
Hierome's  words,  Epist.  ad  Evagrium,  -of  the 
presbyters  of  Alexandria  choosing  and  making 
their  own  bishop,  from  the  days  of  Mark  to 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius." 

Usher,  it  is  well  known,  held  that  the  bishops 
differed  from  the  presbyters,  not  in  order,  but 
simply  in  degree.  "  The  intrinsical  power  of 
ordaining,"  he  writes,  "  proceedeth  not  from  juris- 
diction, but  only  from  order.  But  a  presbyter 
hath  the  same  order  in  specie  with  a  bishop. 
Ergo,  a  presbyter  hath  equally  an  intrinsical 
power  to  give  orders,  and  is  equal  to  him  in  the 
power  of  order ;  the  bishop  having  no  higher 
degree  in  respect  of  retention  or  extension  of  the 
character  of  .  orders,  though  he  hath  a  higher 
degree,  i.  e.  a  more  eminent  place  in  respect  of 
authority  and  jurisdiction  and  spiritual  regimen." 
Appendix  to  "  Pan's  Life,"  p.  6,  ed.  16S6.  "  The 
Lord  Primate  was  ahvAvs  of  this  opinion,''  says 
Parr.  He  quotes  hitn  as  saying:  "Howsoever, 
I  must  needs  think  that  the  churches  which  have 


TESTIMONY  OF  USHER. 


47 


no  bishops  are  thereby  become  very  much  defec- 
tive in  their  government,  and  tliat  the  churches 
in  France,  who,  living  under  a  Popish  power, 
cannot  do  what  they  would,  are  more  excusable 
in  this  defect  than  the  Low  Countries,  that  live 
under  a  free  State.  Yet,  for  the  testifying  my 
communion  with  these  churches  (which  I  do  love 
and  honor  as  true  members  of  the  Church  uni- 
versal), I  do  profess  that,  with  like  affection,  I 
should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands 
of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as 
I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers, 
if  I  were  in  Charenton." 

This  language  is  the  more  important  to  our 
purpose,  inasmuch  as  but  recently,  in  1634,  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  the  father  of  exclusive  Episcopacy, 
had  desired  the  English  Ambassador  to  France 
not  to  attend  the  preaching  and  sacraments  of 
the  Presbyterian  ministers  at  Charenton,  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  no  valid  ordination. 

BISHOP  SriLLINGFLEET  (died  1699). 

We  pass  now  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  divines  of  the  latter  half  of 
the  same  century,  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  about 
whom  there  has  been  as  much  controversy  as 
concerning  any  divine  of  his  Church.  The  testi- 
mony of  Stillingfleet  is  the  more  forcible,  as  he 
belongs  to  that  class  of  Episcopalians,  who,  led 
astray  from  their  early  moderation,  have  adopted 


48 


THE  PUIMITIVE  EIKENICON. 


more  stringent  views  of  Episcopacy  in  after  life. 
Stillingfleet,  however,  like  many  others,  on  further 
reflection,  returned  to  the  comprehensive  views 
he  had  so  ably  presented  in  his  "  Irenicum." 
Stillingfleet,  after  he  was  made  dean,  in  1680, 
used  strong  language  towards  the  non-conform- 
ists, and  advanced  higher  claims  for  Episcopacy, 
and  intimated  that  he  would  not  then~  have  made 
all  the  concessions  which  he  had  advanced  in  his 
"  Irenicum,"  written  in  1662.  He  wrote,  how- 
ever, in  the  heat  of  a  most  violent  controversy  — 
"  that  age  of  fierce  and  savage  controversy,  of 
the  tomahawk  and  scalping-knife,"  as  Rogers 
terms  it. 

In  the  last  years  of  his  life,  Stillingfleet  revised, 
and  endorsed  entire.  Bishop  Burnet's  work  on 
"  The  Articles,"  a  work  most  obnoxious  to  ex- 
clusive churchmen,  wherein  the  author  asserts, 
"  Whatsoever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought 
of  this  since  that  time,  yet  we  are  very  sure  that 
not  only  those  who  penned  the  Articles,  but  the 
body  of  the  Church,  half  an  age  after,  did,  not- 
withstanding those  irregularities,  acknowledge 
the  foreign  Churches,  so  constituted  to  be  true 
Churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church, 
though  they  had  been  at  first  irregularly  formed, 
and  continued  still  to  be  in  an  imperfect  state. 
And,  therefore,  the  general  words  in  which  this 
part  of  the  Article  (23d)  is  penned,  seem  to  have 
been  designed  on  purpose  not  to  exclude  them." 
This  language  Stillingfleet  fully  endorsed. 


TESTIMONY  OF  STILMNGFI-EET. 


49 


Ten  years  previous,  he  united  with  Tillotson, 
Tennison,  Patrick,  and  others,  in  an  earnest 
attempt  for  a  comprehension  of  dissenters,  and 
one  of  the  conditions  of  the  plan  was  that  "  for- 
eign Presbyterian  ministers  should  be  received 
without  reordi nation."  Birch,  in  his  "  Life  of  Til- 
lotson," gives  the  particulars.  The  arrangement 
was  defeated  by  the  bigotry  and  intolerance  of 
the  lower  House  of  Convocation  ;  in  consequence, 
England  has  presented  the  sad  anomaly,  for  two 
centuries,  of  a  national  Church  rejected  by  half 
the  population. 

The  equally  distinguished  John  Howe,  in  reply 
to  Stillingfleet  after  his  defection,  writes:  — 
"  Somewhat  it  is  likely  he  was  expected  (and 
might  be  expected)  to  say  to  this  business;  and 
his  own  thoughts  being  set  to  a  work,  fermented 
into  an  intemperate  heat,  which,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  will  in  time  evaporate,"  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  the  case.  Bishop  Burnet,  so  intimate 
with  this  author,  writes  of  him  :  "  To  avoid  the 
imputation  that  book  brought  on  him,  he  went 
into  the  business  of  a  high  sort  of  people  beyond 
what  became  him,  perhaps  beyond  his  own  sense 
of  things." 

Our  own  Bishop  White  writes  concerning  the 
"  Irenicum  "  :  "  The  book,  however,  was,  it  seems, 
easier  retracted  than  refuted ;  for,  though  offen- 
sive to  other  parties,  it  was  mannged,  says  the 
same  author  (Burnet),  with  so  tniich  learning  and 


50 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


skill,  that  none  of  either  side  undertook  to  answer 
it."  ("  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches," 
p.  22.) 

Presuming,  then,  that  the  testimony  of  Stilling- 
fleet  is  the  more  conclusive  from  his  subsequent 
history,  we  give  a  few  extracts  from  the  abundant 
supply  at  hand.  On  page  298,  he  asserts:  "  Be- 
fore the  jurisdiction  of  presbyters  was  restrained 
by  mutual  consent,  in  this  instance,  doubtless, 
the  presbyters  enjoyed  the  same  liberty  that  the 
presbyters  among  the  Jews  did,  of  ordaining  other 
presbyters  by  the  power  with  which  they  were 
invested  at  their  own  ordination.  In  the  first 
primitive  Church,  the  presbyters  all  acted  in  com- 
mon for  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and  either  did 
or  might  ordain  others  to  the  same  authority  with 
themselves;  because  the  intrinsical  power  of  order 
is  equally  in  them,  and  in  those  who  were  after 
appointed  governors  over  presbyters.  And  the 
collation  of  orders  doth  come  from  the  power  of 
order,  and  not  from  the  power  of  jurisdiction. 
It  being,  likewise,  fully  acknowledged  by  the 
school-men  that  bishops  are  not  superior  above 
presbyters  as  to  the  power  of  order. 

"  But  the  clearest  evidence  of  this  is  in  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  of  vi'hich  Hierome  speaks: 
'  For  at  Alexandria,'  "  etc.  Then  quoting  the  pas- 
sages we  have  previously  given,  and  contending 
that  the  ordination  as  well  as  election  was  con- 
ducted by  the  presbyters  simply,  he  proceeds : 


TESTIMONY  OF  STlLLIXGFLliET. 


51 


To  which  we  may  add  what  Eufi/chius,  the 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  saith  in  his  Origines 
Ecclesice  Alexandrince,  published  in  Arabic  by 
our  most  learned  Selden,  who  expressly  affirms, 
'  that  the  twelve  presbyters,' "  etc.  ;  then  giving 
the  language  as  we  have  formerly  quoted  it,  he 
proceeds:  "Neither  is  the  authority  of  Eiilijc.liiiDt 
so  much  to  be  slighted  in  this  case,  ct)ming  so 
near  to  Hierome  as  he  doth." 

"  By  these  we  see  that  where  no  positive  re- 
straint from  constraint  and  choice,  for  the  unity 
and  peace  of  the  Church,  have  restrained  their 
liberty  as  to  their  external  exercise  of  the  power 
of  order  or  jurisdiction,  every  one  being  ad- 
vanced into  the  authority  of  a  church  governor, 
hath  an  internal  power  of  conferring  the  same  on 
persons  fit  for  it."  On  page  326,  he  writes  :  "  At 
Alexandria,  where  the  succession  runs  clearest, 
the  original  of  the  powers  is  imputed  to  the 
choice  of  presbyters,  and  to  no  divine  institu- 
tion." On  page  398,  after  showing  that  in  Scot- 
land ordination  was  practiced  by  presbyters  from 
i  A.  D.  263  to  A.  D.  430,  he  proceeds  :  "  Neither  is 
it  any  ways  sufficient  to  say  that  those  presbyters 
did  derive  their  authority  from  bisiiops  ;  for,  how- 
ever, we  see  here  a  Church  governed  without 
I  such,  or  if  they  had  any,  they  were  only  chosen 
from  their  Cu/dei,  much  after  the  custom  of  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  as  Hector  Boethius  doth 
imply."    Then,  stating  that  the  Gothic  churches 


52 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


were  planted  and  governed  by  presbyters  for 
seventy  years,  and  the  great  probability  that  pres- 
byters ordained  in  the  Church  of  France,  he  con- 
cludes :  "  We  nowhere  read  in  those  early  planta- 
tions of  churches,  that  ivhere  there  were  presbyters 
already^  they  sent  to  other  Churches  to  derive  epis- 
copal ordination  from  thetti.'"  And  in  relation  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  to  the 
point,  on  page  438,  he  writes  :  "  It  is  acknowl- 
edged by  the  stoutest  champions  for  Episcopacy, 
before  the  late  unhappy  divisions,  that  ordination 
performed  by  presbyters,  in  cases  of  necessity,  is 
valid." 

In  testimony  to  this  last  statement  he  refers  to 
Bishops  Jewel,  Pilkington,  Bridges,  Bilson,  Alley, 
Andrews,  Downham,  Davenant,  Prideaux,  and 
Morton,  with  Drs.  Field,  Saravia,  Nowel,  and 
Mason,  "  to  whom  may  be  added  the  Primate  of 
Armagh  (Ussher),  whose  judgment  is  well  known 
as  to  the  point  of  ordination." 

Thus  much  for  the  testimony  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  In  our  next  chapter,  the  witness  of  liv- 
ing Episcopal  writers  will  be  presented. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


MODERN  EPISCOPAL  WRITERS. 

Having  presented  proof  that  the  Church  of 
England  acknowledged  the  validity  of  Presbyte- 
rian Orders,  in  the  most  public  manner,  for  up- 
wards of  a  century  after  the  compilation  of  her 
standards,  we  proceeded  to  vindicate  her  action 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 
primitive  precedent.  That  for  the  space  of  two 
hundred  years  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  after 
its  foundation  by  St.  Mark,  no  episcopal  conse- 
cration or  succession  was  practiced  or  possessed, 
we  have  shown  by  the  statements  of  the  early 
Fathers,  and  the  later  writers  of  the  Alexandrian 
Church.  That  this  was  known  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  ablest  writers  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies, has  been  seen  by  quotations  from  their 
writings. 

We  proceed  now  to  present  the  admissions  of 
modern  Episcopal  writers  in  relation  to  a  fact 
which  completely  silences  all  exclusive  Episcopal 
claims.    And  first,  — 


64 


THE  fKlMlTlVE  EIRENICON. 


DR.  STANLEY  (Dean  of  Westminster). 

•In  his  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church  "  (pp. 
326-27),  when  speaking  of  the  period  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  he  says :  — 

"  In  a  few  weeks  after  the  close  of  the  Council, 
Alexander  died,  and  Athanasius  succeeded  to  the 
vacant  see.  It  was  a  marked  epoch  in  every 
sense  for  the  Egyptian  primacy.  Down  to  this 
time  (according  to  the  traditions  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Church  itself),  the  election  to  the  great 
post  had  been  conducted  in  a  manner  unlike  to 
that  of  the  other  sees  of  Christendom.  Not  the 
bishop,  but  twelve  presbyters,  were  the  electors 
and  nominators,  and  (according  to  Eutychius) 
consecrators.  It  was  on  the  death  of  Alexander 
that  this  ancient  custom  was  exchanged  for  one 
more  nearly  resembling  that  which  prevailed 
elsewhere. 

"  Jerome  speaks  of  the  custom  as  having  lasted 
only  till  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius 
(Epist.  ad  Evang.  85).  But  the  tradition  of 
the  Alexandrian  Church,  as  preserved  in  Euty- 
chius (1-331),  maintained  that  it  lasted  till 
Alexander.  The  change  which  he  ascribes  to 
Heraclas  is  another,  which  may  have  led  to 
Jerome's  statement,  namely,  that  down  to  that 
time  there  had  been  no  bishop  in  Egypt  except 
the  Bishop  of  Alexandria." 


TESTIMONY  OF  LITTON. 


55 


PROFESSOR  LITTON  (of  Oxford). 

This  able  writer  remarks,  in  his  treatise  on 
"  The  Church  of  Christ "  (p.  570) :  «  When  Epis- 
copacy was  introduced,  to  bishops  as  being  so  far 
successors  of  the  Apostles  as  that  they  were  the 
highest  order  of  ministers  in  the  Church,  the 
power  of  ordination  was,  agreeably  to  apostolic 
precedent,  reserved  —  a  reservation  which  was 
ratified  by  ancient  canons,  and  has  received  the 
sanction  of  immemorial  usage.  On  this  solid 
ground  it  is  best  to  rest  the  practice  of  Episcopal 
ordination.  That  bishops  rightly  ordain,  we  can 
say  with  certainty  ;  to  say  that  none  but  they  can 
ordain,  is,  not  only  to  add  something  of  our  own 
to  the  written  Word,  but  to  set  aside  the  evi- 
dence of  history,  which  testifies  to  the  contrary, 
and  to  abandon  the  moderate  position  taken  upon 
this  subject  by  our  most  learned  divines. 

"  The  most  remarkable  instance,  in  which  a 
deviation  from  the  rule  that  bishops  only  should 
ordain,  appears  to  have  taken  place,  is  the  well- 
known  one  of  the  Alexandrian  Church,  in  which, 
as  Jerome  reports,  it  was  the  custom  for  the  pres- 
byters '  to  choose  one  of  their  own  number,  and 
placing  him  in  a  higher  position,  to  salute  him 
bishop ;  as  if  an  army  should  make  an  emperor, 
or  the  deacons  should  elect  one  of  themselves 
and  call  him  archdeacon.'  (Epist.  ad  Evang.) 
To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Hilary  the 
deacon,  and  of  Eutychius  of  Alexandria.    To  the 


56 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICOK. 


evidence  of  the  former  writer  Mr.  Palmer  (on 
the  Church,  pt.  6,  c.  4),  objects  that  the  word 
'  consignant,'  which  he  (Hilary)  uses,  signifies 
not  '  ordain,'  but  '  confirm,'  and  to  that  of  the 
latter,  that  he  lived  too  late  (in  the  tenth  century) 
to  have  any  weight  in  determining  such  a  ques- 
tion. But,  however  indecisive  the  expressions,  or 
the  opinions,  of  late  writers  separately  may  be, 
the  presumption  in  favor  of  the  obvious  meaning 
of  Jerome's  language,  created  by  their  united 
testimony,  is  very  strong,  especially  as  it  is  con- 
firmed by  a  passage  which  occurs  in  the  book 
printed  with  Augustine's  works,  '  Questiones,' 
etc. :  '  Nam  in  Alexandria  et  per  totam  ^gyptum 
si  desit  episcopus,  consecrat  presbyter.'"  (Q,ues. 
51.) 

DR.  WILLIAM  GOODE. 

From  "  The  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Prac- 
tice "  of  this  eminent  controversialist,  we  extract 
the  following  testimony:  — 

"  That  episcopal  consecration  was  generally 
appointed  in  very  early  times  to  be,  as  it  was,  the 
seal  to  the  episcopal  appointment,  can  hardly,  I 
think,  be  questioned  by  any  one  who  is  at  all 
versed  in  the  records  of  the  Primitive  Church  ; 
but,  nevertheless,  there  are  testimonies  occurring 
which  seem  to  show,  not  merely  that  it  was  not 
absolutely  essential,  but  that  it  was  not  univer- 
sally practiced. 


TESTIMONY  OF  GOODE. 


67 


"  For  instance,  the  testimony  of  Eutychius  of 
Alexandria,  is  plain  that  such  was  not  the  case 
originally  at  Alexandria.  His  words  are  these :  " 
Then  quoting  the  passage,  he  proceeds  :  "  I  have 
given  this  passage  in  full,  because  it  has  been 
sometimes  replied  that  it  referred  only  to  the 
election  of  the  patriarch,  and  that  we  must  sup- 
pose that  he  was  afterwards  consecrated  to  his 
office  by  bishops.  But  it  is  evident  to  any  one 
who  takes  the  whole  passage  together,  that  such 
an  explanation  is  altogether  inadmissible  ;  and, 
moreover,  the  very  same  word  which  (following 
Selden)  I  have  translated  created,  is  used  with 
respect  to  the  acts  of  the  presbyters,  and  is  after- 
wards used  with  respect  to  the  acts  of  the  bisliops 
in  the  appointments.  I  am  quite  aware  tliat  very 
considerable  learning  has  been  employed  in  the 
attempt  to  explain  away  this  passage,  and  the 
reader  who  wishes  to  see  how  a  plain  statement 
may  thus  be  darkened,  may  refer  to  the  works 
mentioned  below." 

Commenting  on  a  passage  from  Renaudot,  he 
continues  :  "  The  sole  object  for  which  1  quote 
the  passage  is,  to  show,  that  according  to  Euty- 
chius, the  person  appointed  to  the  episcopal 
office  in  Alexandria  held  and  exercised  the  duties 
of  the  office  without  any  episcopal  consecra- 
tion. 

"  And  this  statement  of  Eutychius  is  clearly 
and  expressly  supported   by  the  testimony  of 


58 


THE  PKIMITIVE  EIRENICON'. 


Jerome,  in  a  passage  where  he  plainly  maintains 
the  doctrine  that  such  an  appointment  is  suffi- 
cient to  constitute  a  presbyter  a  bishop,  and 
adduces  this  example  in  proof  of  it." 

After  quoting  Jerome's  words,  he  adds:  "  This 
passage,  be  it  observed,  does  not  take  away  from 
the  episcopate  its  rights,  but  distinctly  admits 
that  the  power  of  ordination  belongs  properly  to 
that  office,  and  that  its  possessor  has  a  higher 
rank  than  the  presbyter.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  it  clearly  maintains  that  as  it  respects  the 
ministerial  character,  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween a  presbyter  and  a  bishop,  the  difference 
being  only  to  be  found  in  the  ecclesiastical  dis- 
tribution of  the  duties  to  be  performed  by  them, 
and  what  is  still  more  to  our  purpose,  that 
appointment  to  the  episcopal  office  by  the  pres- 
byters of  the  Church  is  sufficient  (as  far  as  essen- 
tials are  concerned)  to  entitle  a  presbyter  to 
perform  the  duties  of  the  episcopal  function. 

"  Now  these  two  positions  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  each  other.  We  may  maintain  fully 
even  the  apostolicity  of  the  episcopal  form  of 
church  government,  and  yet  deny,  that  episcopal 
consecration  is  a  sine  qua  non  to  the  performance 
of  the  duties  of  the  bishop  or  president  of  a 
church.  And,  if  we  bear  this  in  mind,  we  shall 
find  that  Jerome,  notwithstanding  the  charges  of 
self-contradiction  that  have  been  brought  against 
him,  is  perfectly  consistent  in  what  he  has  written 


TESTIMONY  OF  RlDt)LE. 


59 


on  this  subject.  The  great  point  with  Jerome 
manifestly  is,  that  such  a  president  of  the  Church 
should  be  appointed,  and  such  powers  conceded 
to  him  ;  and,  in  his  view,  when  that  is  done,  the 
essentials  are  safe."    (Vol.  ii.  pp.  255-59.) 

REV.  J.  E.  KIDDLE. 

We  present  another  witness  in  this  connection, 
whose  testimony  is  of  great  weight  from  his  emi- 
nent learning  in  the  department  of  Christian 
Antiquities,  —  Rev.  Mr.  Riddle,  of  St.  Edmunds 
Hall,  Oxford.  As  a  commentator  on  the  Gospels 
and  Prayer  Book,  as  a  Church  historian,  as  a 
chronologist,  a  lexicographer,  as  Bampton  lec- 
turer for  1852,  and  particularly  as  the  compiler 
of  the  most  learned  of  English  modern  works 
on  Christian  Antiquities,  this  author's  opinion 
on  the  point  we  are  considering  is  of  peculiar 
value. 

From  Mr.  Riddle's  full  and  candid  dissertation 
on  the  ancient  distinction  between  the  bishop 
and  presbyter,  we  take  the  following  extract  : 
"  Jerome,  one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  who  had  before  him  all  the  testimonies 
and  arguments  of  earlier  writers,  has  placed  this 
matter  in  its  true  light  with  peculiar  distinctness. 
In  his  annotation  on  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  Titus,  he  gives  the  following  account 
of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  episcopal  office: 
♦A  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop.    And  until, 


66 


tHK  I'ULMITIVE  EIRENICOJ^. 


by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  there  arose  divis- 
ions in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  peo- 
ple, "  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of 
Cephas,"  churches  w^ere  governed  by  the  Com- 
mon Council  of  the  presbyters.  But  afterwards, 
when  every  one  regarded  those  whom  he  baptized 
as  belonging  to  himself  rather  than  to  Christ,  it 
was  everywhere  decreed  that  one  person,  elected 
from  the  presbyters,  should  be  placed  over  the 
others ;  to  whom  the  care  of  the  whole  church 
might  belong,  and  thus  the  seeds  of  division 
might  be  taken  away.  Should  any  one  suppose 
that  this  opinion,  —  that  a  bishop  and  presbyter  is 
the  same,  and  that  one  is  the  denomination  of 
age  and  the  other  of  office,  —  is  not  sanctioned 
by  the  Scriptures,  but  is  only  a  private  fancy  of 
my  own,  let  him  read  over  again  the  Apostles' 
words  to  the  Pliilippians,  — "  Paul  and  Timotheus, 
the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi  with  the  bish- 
ops and  deacons  :  Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace, 
from  God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  etc.  Philippi  is  a  single  city  of  Mace- 
donia, and  certainly,  of  those  who  are  now  styled 
bishops,  there  could  not  have  been  several  at  one 
time  in  the  same  city.  But,  because  at  that  time 
they  called  the  same  persons  bishops  whom  they 
styled  also  presbyters,  therefore  the  Apostle  spoke 
indifferently  of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.' 

"  The  writer  then  refers  to  the  fact,  that  St. 


TESTIMONY  OF  RIDDLE. 


61 


Paul,  having  sent  for  tlie  prcsbi/ters  (in  the  plural) 
of  the  single  city  of  Ephesus  only,  afterwards 
calls  these  same  persons  bishops.  (Acts  xx.)  To 
this  fact  he  calls  particular  attention,  and  then 
observes  that,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  also, 
we  find  the  care  of  tlie  Church  divided  equally 
among  many.  '"Obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they  watch 
for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account ; 
that  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  with  grief, 
for  that  is  unprofitable  for  you  !  "  And  Peter,'  con- 
tinues Jerome,  '  who  received  his  name  from  the 
firmness  of  his  faith,  says  in  his  Epistle:  The 
presbyters  who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am 
also  a  ])resbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that 
shall  be  revealed  ;  feed  the  flock  of  God  which 
is  among  you  [he  omits  the  word,  "taking  the 
oversight  thereof,"  episcopountes,  i.  e.,  superin- 
tending it],  not  by  constraint  but  willingly." 
These  things  we  have  brought  forward  to  show 
that,  with  the  ancients,  presbyters  were  the  same 
as  bishops.  But  in  order  that  the  roots  of  dissen- 
sion might  be  plucked  up,  a  tisage  gradually  took 
place,  that  the  whole  care  should  devolve  upon  one. 
Therefore,  as  the  presbyters  knew  that  it  is  by 
the  custom  of  the  Church  that  they  are  subject  to 
him  who  is  placed  over  them.,  so  let  the  bishops 
know  that  they  are  above  presbyters  rather  by 
custom  than  by  the  Lord^s  ajrpointme nt,  and  that 


62 


tttE  PfelMlTtVE  ElRENtCON. 


they  ouglit  to  rale  the  Church  in  common,  herein 
imitating  Moses,'  etc. 

"  The  same  views  are  maintained  by  this  father 
in  his  '  Epistle  to  Evagrius,'  with  the  additional 
mention  of  the  fact,  that  from  the  first  foundation 
of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  down  to  the  days  of 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters  of  that 
Church  made  (or,  as  we  should  say,  consecrated) 
bishops.  The  passage,  which  is  quoted  at  some 
length  in  the  note,  is  very  important.  Having  re- 
ferred to  several  passages  of  the  Acts  and  epistles 
in  proof  of  an  assertion  which  he  had  made,  to 
the  effect  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  at  first 
the  same,  he  proceeds  to  say  that  '  afterwards, 
when  one  was  elected  and  set  over  the  others, 
this  was  designed  as  a  remedy  against  schism. 
.  .  .  .  For  at  Alexandria,  from  the  Evangel- 
ist Mark,  down  to  the  bishops  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  the  presbyters  always  gave  the  name 
of  bishop  to  one  whom  they  elected  from  them- 
selves, and  placed  in  a  higher  degree  ;  in  the  same 
way  as  an  army  may  create  its  general,  or  as 
deacons  may  elect  one  of  their  own  body,  whom 
they  know  to  be  assiduous  in  the  discharge  of 
duty,  and  call  him  archdeacon.  For  what  does 
a  bishop  perform,  except  ordination,  which  a  pres- 
byter may  not  do,'  etc. 

"  The  fact  which  Jerome  here  states,  respecting 
the  appointments  and  ordination  of  bishops  in 
the  Church  of  Alexandria  by  presbyters  alone,  for 


TEStlMONV  OF  TEKI'ULI.IAN. 


the  space  of  more  than  two  centuries,  is  attested 
also  by  Eutychius,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  And 
the  opinion  of  Jerome  respecting  the  original 
equality,  or  rather  identity,  of  presbyter  and 
bishop,  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  language 
of  a  still  earlier  writer,  Tertuliian,  '  De  Baptis- 
mo,'  c.  xvii.  The  two  passages  together  form  a 
text  and  a  commentary,  sufficient  to  elucidate 
the  whole  matter : 

"  '  The  highest  priest,  who  is  the  bishop,'  says 
Tertuliian,  '  has  the  right  of  administering  bap- 
tism. Then  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  yet  not 
without  the  authority  of  the  bishop,  because  of 
the  honor  of  the  Church,  which  being  preserved, 
peace  is  preserved.    Otherwise  the  right  belongs 

even  to  laymen  Emulation  is  the 

mother  of  division.  "  All  things  are  lawful  to 
me,"  said  the  most  holy  Paul,  "  but  all  things  are 
not  expedient."  Let  it  suffice  that  you  use  your 
liberty  in  cases  of  necessity,  when  the  condition 
of  the  person,  or  the  circumstances  of  the  place, 
compel  you  to  it.' 

"  Upon  the  whole,  then,  it  appears  that  the  or- 
der (or  office)  of  a  bishop  is  above  that  of  a  priest, 
not  by  any  authority  of  Scripture,  but  only  by  the 
custom  of  the  Church,  or  by  virtue  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical arrangement"  (Riddle's  "Antiquities,"  pp. 
235-42,  ed.  1843). 

The  declaration  of  Jerome,  that  as  late  as  the 
fourth  century,  the  authority  to  ordain  was  the 


6-i  tHE  PKlMlTlVl':  KlliKNlCOS*. 

sole  peculiar  privilege  of  llie  bishop,  and  this  atl 
ecclesiustieal  arrangement,  not  a  divine  ordinance, 
is  in  itself  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  exclusive 
Episcopal  claim,  upon  which  such  a  dangerous 
superstructure  of  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  has  been 
erected  in  later  times. 

In  his  preface  to  this  same  volume,  entitled 
"  A  Plea  for  Episcopacy,  Charity,  and  Peace," 
Riddle  writes  :  "  I  have  thus  put  together  a  few 
thoughts  which  have  arisen  in  iny  mind  while  I 
have  been  particularly  conversant  with  works  re- 
lating to  the  history  and  antiquities  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Perhaps  even  those  grounds  of 
episcopacy  which  I  have  described  as  certain  and 
strong,  may  be  regarded  by  some  persons  in  a  dif- 
ferent light,  while  others  may  think  that  clear  cer- 
tainty and  evidence  attach  to  those  which  I  have 
ventured  to  describe  as  doubtful.  But  such  dif- 
ference of  opinion  will  not  trouble  either  my 
readers  or  myself,  if  we  are  duly  influenced  by 
Christian  humility  and  a  peaceful  love  of  truth. 

"  Lessons  of  moderation,  candor,  and  Chris- 
tian charity,  may  be  continually  learnt  by  a  care- 
ful examination  of  church  history  and  antiquities. 
Great  mischief  and  many  dissensions  have  arisen 
from  refusing  to  acknowledge  certain  questions  to 
be  doubtful  or  open,  which  yet  have  never  been 
determined,  and  which  it  is  not  needful  to  com- 
press within  narrow  limits.  The  study  of  Chris- 
tian antiquities  may  show  that  questions  do  ex- 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


65 


ist,  in  connection  with  the  origin  and  claims  of 
Episcopacy,  which,  if  positively  decided  and  main- 
tained in  the  affirmative  by  anyone  set  of  persons, 
must  lead  to  unpleasant  differences,  and  perhaps 
to  a  want  of  Christian  sympathy,  between  those 
who  ought  to  '  love  as  brethren.I  Let  the  advo- 
cates of  different  systems  of  church  government 
treat  each  other  not  merely  with  forbearance,  but 
with  unfeigned  respect.  None  of  the  prevalent 
systems  of  the  present  day  can  afford  to  maintain 
any  excluisive  claims  in  the  face  of  history.  Nor 

can  such  claims  consist  with  charity  

"  The  following  questions,  for  example,  may 
well  be  left  open,  being  such  as  will  always  re- 
ceive different  answers  from  different  inquirers. 

Did  the  Apostles  in  any  way  sanction  the 
doctrines  commonly  connected  with  the  theory  of 
apostolic  succession  ?  If  an  apostolic  succession 
had  been  designed  from  the  first,  it  may  reason- 
ably be  supposed  that  the  Apostles  would  have 
made  some  pointed  allusion  to  such  a  provision 
for  the  transmission  of  the  faith,  and  for  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  especially  in  their  warnings  against 
false  doctrines  and  divisions.  But  although  such 
warnings  are  numerous,  they  contain  no  intima- 
tions of  such  a  bulwark  of  sound  doctrine  and 
centre  of  Christian  unity.  St.  Paul,  in  full  pros- 
pect of  the  attempts  of  false  teachers,  did  not 
charge  the  elders  of  Ephesus  to  abide  by  the  de- 
cisions and  doctrines  of  a  bishop,  but  he  desired 


66 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


them  to  take  heed  to  themselves,  and  then  com- 
mended them  to  God  

"  Whatever  may  become  of  apostolic  succession 
as  a  theory  or  institute,  it  is  impossible,  at  all 
events,  to  prove  the  fact  of  such  succession,  or  to 
trace  it  down  the  stream  of  time.  In  this  case, 
the  fact  seems  to  involve  the  doctrine  ;  and  if  the 
fact  be  hopelessly  obscure,  the  doctrine  is  irrecov- 
erably lost.  But  can  we  suppose  that  the  divine 
Author  of  our  religion  has  sufli'ered  any  part  of  his 
Gospel  to  perish  ?  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that 
a  truly  apostolic  succession  may  have  existed, 
although  the  traces  may  have  entirely  disap- 
peared, but  must  we  not  allow  men  to  regard 
such  a  loss  as  constituting  to  render  the  wliole 
doctrine  and  institute  extremely  doubtful?  Should 
we  not  weaken  the  good  cause  of  Episcopacy,  by 
insisting  upon  pretensions  which  cannot  be  estab- 
lished, and  which  may  really  be  fictitious  ? 

"  It  is  impossible  to  prove  the  personal  succes- 
sion of  modern  bishops,  in  an  unbroken  episcopal 
line,  from  the  Apostles,  or  men  of  the  apostolic 
age. 

"  As  a  matter  of  history  and  fact,  apostolic 
succession,  in  this  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  an 
absolute  nonentity.  Call  it  a  theory,  a  fiction,  a 
vision,  or  whatever  you  choose,  you  cannot  give 
it  a  name  too  shadowy  and  unsubstantial.  It 
exists,  indeed,  as  an  honest  prejudice  in  the  minds 
of  many  sincere  Christians,  and  so  far  is  entitled 


TESTIMONY  OF  RIDDLf:. 


67 


to  consideration  and  respect.  But  in  itself  it  is 
an  empty  sound. 

"  Doubtless  the  custom  of  setting  apart  men 
for  the  Christian  ministry  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  has  existed  in  the  Church  from  the  apos- 
tolic age,  having  been  originally  derived  from  the 
practice  of  the  Jewish  synagogues,  under  which 
institution  all  who  were  appointed  as  fixed  min- 
isters, to  take  care  of  the  performance  of  religious 
duties,  were  solemnly  appointed  in  this  manner. 
The  hands  of  the  Apostles  and  their  contempo- 
raries form,  therefore,  the  first  link  of  a  chain 
which  has  extended  to  the  present  day  ;  and  this 
circumstance  is  a  pleasing  subject  of  contempla- 
tion to  the  minds  of  many  persons,  and  espe- 
cially to  the  members  of  those  churches  which 
have  retained  the  custom.  But  we  must  be  in 
possession  of  many  other  particulars,  which  are 
irrevocably  lost,  in  order  to  build  upon  this  fact 
the  doctrine  of  a  succession,  derived  from  the 
Apostles  themselves,  in  the  line  of  bishops  alone, 
and  for  the  conveyance  of  a  peculiar  grace" 
(Preface  to  Riddle's  "  Antiquities,"  pp.  41,  46 ; 
50,  51). 

The  views  of  the  most  distinguished  writers  of 
the  Church  of  England,  with  respect  to  apostolic 
succession,  are  given  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 


CHAPTER  YJL 


THE  ARGUMENT  OF  AN  EPISCOPAL  LAYMAN  OP  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE 
ORDINATIONS    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

We  quote  from  "  An  Inquiry  into  the  Scrip- 
tural View  of  the  Constitution  of  a  Christian 
Church,"  etc.,  by  William  Albin  Garratt,  A.  M., 
Barrister  at  Law.    London  :  1846. 

As  the  view  taken  by  a  lay  member  of  the 
Church  of  England,  employing  a  legal  mind  in 
the  examination  of  historical  testimony,  we  re- 
gard the  passage  as  eminently  valuable,  and 
therefore  quote  it  almost  entire.  On  the  laity 
of  the  Chui'ch,  under  God,  depends  its  deliver- 
ance from  its  present  dangers,  and  to  them  espe- 
cially is  commended  a  careful  examinalion  of 
the  testimony  here  presented.  On  p.  367,  this 
author  writes:  "  Eutychius,  of  Alexandria,  after 
mentioning  that  Mark  the  Evangelist  went  and 
preached  at  Alexandria,  and  appointed  Hananias 
the  first  patriarch  of  that  city,  adds."  The  author, 
after  quoting  Eutychius,  and  then  Severus,  whose 
language  we  have  before  given,  says  :  "  The  slight 
apparent  discrepancy  between  these  two  passages 


ARGUMENT  OF  AN  ANGLICAN  BARRISTER.  69 


may  easily  be  removed.  Eutychins  mentions  the 
twelve  presbyters  only  in  whom  the  appointment 
of  patriarcli  was  vested,  from  wliom  the  patriarch 
was  to  be  chosen,  and  of  whom  the  remaining 
eleven  were  to  lay  their  hands  on  his  head.  Seve- 
rus  says  that  the  priests  (sacerdotes)  and  people 
were  assembled  ;  while  Eutychius  does  not  say 
that  the  people  were  excluded  from  being  present 
at  the  appointment  of  a  new  patriarch.  Severus 
mentions  the  priests  generally,  not  particularly 
specifying  the  twelve  presbyters  ;  nor  had  he  any 
occasion  to  specify  them,  as  he  does  not  mention 
the  election,  but  only  the  assembling  and  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  and  the  enthroning.  We  may, 
indeed,  infer  from  the  tenor  of  this  narrative  that 
the  election  in  the  case  of  Peter  was  merely 
formal;  the  choice  having  been  previously  fixed 
upon  him  as  the  spiritual  son  and  disciple  of 
Theonas,  and  in  pursuance  of  his  '  command  '  (his 
recommendation  probably).  Lastly,  Severus,  if 
taken  literally  and  strictly,  would  seem  to  say 
that  the  persons  assembled,  priests  and  people, 
laid  hands  on  Peter;  but  no  one  would  under- 
stand him  to  say  that  every  individual  present 
laid  his  hands  on  Peter.  The  plain  meaning  is, 
that  those  of  the  individuals  assembled  whose 
office  it  was  laid  hands  on  the  patriarch  elect,  the 
others  being  assembled  to  witness  the  transaction. 

"  We  have,  then,  in  Eutychius,  illustrated  and 
confirmed  by  Severus,  distinct  evidence  of  the  ex- 


70 


THE  PKIMITJVK  EIRENICON. 


istence  of  a  custom  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria 
differing  altogether  from  the  customs  mentioned 
by  Cyprian,  as  prevailing  among  the  African 
churches  in  his  province;  a  custom  traced  back  to 
the  time  of  Mark  the  Evangelist ;  a  custom  which 
vested  the  election  and  creation  of  the  patriarch  in 
twelve  presbyters  without  the  concurrence  of  any 
bishop.  The  eleven  presbyters  who  remained 
after  one  of  their  number  had  been  elected  bishop, 
laid  their  hands  upon  his  head  and  implored  a 
blessing  upon  him,  thereby  setting  him  apart  for 
his  new  office  as  the  '  prophets  and  teachers,'  not 
'  apostles  or  bishops,'  which  were  in  the  Church 
at  Antioch,  '  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their 
hands  on '  Paul  (an  apostle  already)  and  Barna- 
bas, and  '  sent  them  away,'  thus  separating  them 
for  '  the  work '  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
'  called  them,'  —  the  missionary  journey  on  which 
they  went,  as  related  immediately  afterwards. 

"  By  this  election  and  imposition  oi  presbyters' 
hands,  the  individual  was,  according  to  Eutychius, 
created  patriarch,  invested  therefore  (without 
episcopal  intervention),  with  the  full  authority  of 
the  episcopal  office,  and,  accordingly  (as  we  learn 
from  Severus),  Peter,  immediately  on  being  so 
appointed,  was  placed  on  the  patriarchal  throne. 
This  statement  of  Severus  overturns  the  fancy  of 
some  persons,  that  the  rule  mentioned  by  Euty- 
chius related  only  to  the  election,  and  that  the 
patriarch  elect  was  afterwards  ordained  by  bish- 


ARGUMENT  OF  AN  ANGLICAN  BARRISTER.  71 


ops.  A  fancy  which  Mr.  Goode,  on  other  grounds, 
has  shown  to  be  without  foundation.  This  view 
of  the  usage  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  is  con- 
firmed by  a  passage  in  Jerome  (born  about  a.  d. 
345),  which,  on  account  of  its  importance,  I  have 
quoted  at  some  length."  Having  given  the  pas- 
sage as  we  have  previously  quoted  it,  he  pro- 
ceeds :  "  In  this  passage  Jerome  not  only  con- 
firms Eutychius'  statement  of  the  custom  of  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  but  shows  his  understand- 
ing of  the  custom  to  be  that  the  presbyters  there 
exclusively  appointed  their  bishops;  and  he  fur- 
ther tells  us  how  bishops  were  originally  intro- 
duced into  the  Church. 

"  He  confirms  the  statements  of  Eutvchiu?, 
though  he  speaks  of  the  custom  as  continuing 
(not  till  Alexander,  but)  till  Heraclas  and  Diony- 

sius,  bishops  He  must  have  derived 

his  information  from  some  other  source,  probably 
from  some  writer  contemporary  with  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  from  whom,  of  course,  he  would  only 
have  learned  that  the  custom  had  continued  till 
their  time  ;  and  he  does  not  say  that  it  has  ceased. 
His,  therefore,  is  testimony  independent  of  those 
of  Eutychius  and  Severus,  and  probably  derived 
from  an  earlier  source,  contemporary  with  the 
existence  of  the  custom.  It  leaves  no  room  to 
doubt  the  accuracy  of  the  statements  of  Euty- 
chius and  Severus. 

"  More  than  this,  Jerome's  testimony  establishes 


72 


THE  PRIMITIVK  KIRENICON. 


as  correct  that  view  of  the  custom  which  ascribes 
to  the  presbyter  from  first  to  last  the  appointment 
of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  ;  not  only  his  elec- 
tion (unum  ex  se  electtim),  but  his  elevation  to  a 
higher  rank  ;  for  Jerome  compares  the  proceeding 
to  that  of  an  army  constituting  a  general  {impcr- 
utorem  facial),  which,  according  to  the  Roman 
custom,  was  by  acclamation,  or  of  deans  choosing 
an  archdeacon.  And  the  whole  tenor  of  the  pas- 
sage shows  that  Jerome  intended  to  state  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  as  made 
ivithout  any  episcopal  interference  or  sanction ;  on 
the  custom  so  understood  his  argument  is  founded, 
and  it  is  intelligible  on  no  other  hypothesis.  He 
asks,  indeed,  '  What  does  a  bishop  do,  with  the 
exception  of  ordination,  which  a  presbyter  may 
not  do  ? '  But  he  does  not  ascribe  this  exception 
to  any  difference  of  apostolic  commission  between 
a  bishop  and  presbyter.  His  position  is  that  '  the 
bishop  and  the  presbyter  are  the  same,'  both  '  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles,^  successors  (not  in  the 
sense  of  a  transmitted  commission,  but)  as  hold- 
ing in  the  Church  the  same  office  of  pastors  and 
teachers,  the  bishop  being  placed  '  over  the  rest ' 
as  their  ruler. 

"  And  this  is  obviously  the  ground  of  the  ex- 
ception, it  belonging  to  the  bishop,  as  chief  ruler 
of  the  Church,  to  ordain  ;  an  exception,  therefore, 
limited  to  the  case  of  a  church  having  a  bishop, 
and  not  precluding  the  presbyters  (when  the  see 


ARGUMENT  OF  AN  ANGLICAN  BARRISTER.  73 


is  vacant)  from  electing  and  laying  hands  (as 
those  of  Alexandria  did)  on  their  new  bishop." 

"  Once  more,  Jerome's  account  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  bishops,  as  distinguished  from  presbyters, 
deserves  serious  attention.  Jerome  had  his  faults, 
—  and  great  faults, —  but  he  was  a  man  of  exten- 
sive learning.  He  argues  from  Scripture  that  '  a 
bishop  and  presbyter '  are  the  same ;  and  then 
adds,  that  '  afterwards  one  was  chosen  over  the 
sect.'  Why  ?  '  To  prevent  schism  ; '  to  form  a 
bond  of  union  between  the  presbyters,  and  again 
to  facilitate  union  among  the  different  churches. 
That  he  is  right  in  his  view  of  the  passages  of 
Scripture  which  he  cites  (Phil.  i.  1,  Acts  xx.  28, 
Tit.  i.  5,  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  1  Peter  v.  1,  2  John  i., 
and  3  John  i.)  is,  I  think,  clear,  and  will  scarcely 
be  disputed  by  any  one,  though  an  advocate  for 
Episcopacy,  who  has  carefully  considered  the 
question  ;  and  what  he  adds,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
respecting  the  purpose  for  which  one  person  was 
'  chosen  to  be  over  the  rest,'  is  not  inconsistent 
with  what  we  read  in  the  epistles  to  the  seven 
apocalyptic  churches,  or  with  the  facts  which  have 
been  deduced  from  our  examination  of  the  Fathers 
down  to  the  time  of  Cyprian.  It  is  a  statement 
which  implies  a  gradual  introduction  of  Episco- 
pacy into  the  churches,  first  into  one  church,  and 
then  into  another ;  a  statement  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  result  which  I  deduced  from  an  examina- 
tion of  several  epistles  of  the  apostolic  fathers, 


74 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


and  at  the  same  time  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
notion  of  apostolic  succession  by  episcopal  ordi- 
nation. The  purpose,  however,  for  which  princi- 
pally I  quote  this  passage  of  Jerome,  is  not  for 
his  opinion  respecting  the  bishops  and  presbyters, 
but^to  confirm  the  statements  of  Eutychius  re- 
specting the  original  custom  of  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  in  the  appointment  of  its  patriarchs, 
and  to  overturn  the  erroneous  glosses  sought  to 
be  put  upon  it. 

"  I  now  revert  to  that  statement  of  Eutychius 
as  incontrovertibly  correct,  and  as  establishing 
that,  from  the  time  of  Hananias,  who  was  ap- 
pointed by  St.  Mark  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  till 
after  the  Council  of  Nice,  a  period  of  more  than 
two  centuries,  the  twelve  presbyters  of  Alexandria 
elected  from  among  themselves  their  bishop  or 
patriarch,  and  by  their  appointment  of  him  to  the 
episcopal  office  (the  other  eleven  laying  hands 
opon  hin))  constituted  him  bishop  or  patriarch,  the 
ruler  of  their  church,  entitled  (without  any  sanc- 
tion or  confirmation  of  any  other  bishop)  to  per- 
form all  the  duties  of  the  episcopal  office. 

"  It  is  further  evident  from  the  statement  that 
this  practice  existed  when  there  was  no  want  of 
bishops  to  ordain  or  consecrate  (had  that  been 
thought  necessary)  the  patriarch.  For  Alexander 
(the  patriarch  who  put  an  end  to  the  custom)  is 
said  to  have  transferred  the  election  to  '  the  bish- 
ops;' and  may  we  not,  from  this  expression,  and 


ARGUMENT  OF  AN  ANGLICAN  BAKKISTEK.  75 


from  the  title  given  to  the  bishops  of  Alexan- 
dria, reasonably  conclude  that  Alexandria  was  a 
mother  church  by  which  other  churches  had  been 
founded  with  bishops  of  their  own  ?  Yet  these 
bishops  took  no  part  in  the  appointment  of  the 
patriarchs  until  after  the  Council  of  Nice. 

"  Further,  this  custom  was  observed  for  more 
than  two  centuries  without  objection  being  made 
to  it;  observed,  not  in  an  obscure  church,  but 
in  one  of  the  principal  churches  of  the  age,  in 
the  chief  city  and  metropolitan  church  of  Egypt, 
in  a  church  and  city  of  which  the  catechetical 
school,  successively  under  Clement  and  Origen, 
was  renowned  throughout  the  world.  Its  patri- 
archs (those  created  by  the  presbyters)  were  recog- 
nized by  other  churches,  and  we  learn  from  the 
statements  in  Eutychius,  that  its  patriarch  Alex- 
ander was  one  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
bishops  assembled  at  the  Council  of  Nice.  What 
then  is  the  effect  of  this  one  fact  ?  What  is  the 
effect  of  this  Alexandrian  custom  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  episcopal  succession  by  episcopal  ordina- 
tion from  the  times  of  the  Apostles? 

"  In  the  first  place,  it  confirms  the  objections 
which  I  have  offered  to  various  passages  in  Ire- 
naeus,  Tertuliian,  Origen,  and  Cyprian,  being  re- 
ceived as  evidence  in  support  of  the  alleged  ^fact 
of  apostolical  succession '  in  the  Tractarian  sense 
of  the  word  ;  those  passages  I  mean  in  which  the 
writer  either  speaks  in  general  terms  of  succession 


76 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


or  episcopal  succession  from  the  Apostles,  or  as- 
serts that  apostolical  churches  can  enumerate  the 
succession  of  their  bishops,  from  the  first  bishop 
appointed  by  an  apostle.  It  annihilates  all  such 
passages  as  evidence  for  such  a  purpose.  The 
Alexandrian  patriarchs,  Heraclas,  or  Dionysius,  or 
Alexander,  could,  with  strict  truth,  have  talked 
of  episcopal  succession  in  this  church,  from  the 
first  bishop  appointed  by  Mark  the  Evangelist, 
and  have  enumerated  the  succession  of  bishops 
of  Alexandria  from  that  first  bishop,  and  yet 
those  bishops  were  '  created  '  by  the  presbyters ; 
yet  they  were  not  episcopally  ordained  to  the 
office  of  bishop. 

"  In  the  next  place,  the  Alexandrian  custom 
makes  a  gap  in  apostolical  succession,  through 
episcopal  ordination,  which  can  never  be  filled 
up;  breaks  a  link  in  the  supposed  chain  which 
can  in  no  way  be  replaced.  Even  if  it  could  be 
shown  that  the  custom  was  peculiar  to  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  how  could  any  bishop  of 
the  present  day,  tracing  back  his  succession 
through  a  series  of  bishops  to  an  apostle,  prove 
satisfactorily  that  no  individual  in  that  series  had 
derived,  mediately  or  immediately,  from  one  of 
these  Alexandrian  patriarchs?  But  can  it  be 
shown  that  the  custom  was,  in  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity,  peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Alexan- 
dria ?  Is  it  probable  that  the  Evangelist  St.  Mark 
should  have  there  introduced  a  usage  at  variance 


ARGfMENT  OF  AN  ANGLICAN  BARRISTER.  77 


with  the  practice  of  other  churches  ?  The  truth 
seems  to  be  that  the  Apostles  laid  down  general 
principles  for  the  government  of  churches  and  the 
appointment  of  ministers;  and  that  those  prin- 
ciples were  variously  carried  out  in  different 
churches,  according  to  circumstances,  resulting  in 
some  churches  earlier,  in  others  later,  in  all  ulti- 
mately, in  the  threefold  distinction  of  ministers, 
as  consonant  with,  but  not  essentially  required  by, 
those  principles  "  (pp.  367-79). 

This  able  review,  after  thorough  examina- 
tion of  Scriptural  and  patristic  testimony,  con- 
cludes: "Firstly,  that  a  church,  bearing  a  three- 
fold ministry  of  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons  is 
conformable  to  the  plan  ultimately  introduced, 
with  the  apostolic  sanction,  into  the  churches  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  consequently  consistent  with  the 
will  of  God ;  secondly,  that  such  a  form  of 
church  government  is  the  best^  ivhere  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Church  do  not  essentially  diflf'er 
from  those  of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches;  and, 
thirdly,  that  a  church  possessing  that  form  of  gov- 
ernment ought  not  to  depart  from  it  without  clear 
and  strong  grounds,  such  as  an  obvious  necessity 
for  the  preservation  of  the  true  faith."  "  But  we 
cannot  conclude  from  any  practice  of  the  Church, 
as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  either,  firstly, 
that  a  church  sound  in  apostolic  doctrine,  but 
wanting  the  threefold  ministry,  is  not  a  true 
Church  of  Christ  ;  or,  secondly,  that  a  cliurch 
having  both  an  apostolic  doctrine  and  a  threefold 


78 


THE  I'RtMlTlVE  EIRENICON. 


ministry,  but  whose  bishops  cannot  trace  back  an 
uninterrujited  succession  to  an  apostle,  is  not  a 
true  Church  of  Christ"  (pp.  198,  199). 

We  think  great  good  might  be  done  by  the 
republication  of  this  able  and  candid  work  by  a 
clear-headed  layman. 

bowdler's  view. 

We  give,  in  this  connection,  the  language  of 
another  able  layman  of  the  Church  of  England, 
who  has  employed  his  pen  against  the  modern 
innovators  on  her  doctrines:  — 

"  It  is  no  part  of  my  plan  to  trace  the  origin 
or  course  of  departure  from  the  system  of  church 
government  in  the  apostolical  times,  as  it  lies 
before  us  in  all  its  simplicity.  I  admit  —  indeed, 
as  the  lawyers  say,  it  is  a  part  of  my  case  —  that 
some  change  was  unavoidable;  and  I  see  nothing 
in  the  present  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land that  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the 
Apostles,  But  to  say  that  they  are  identical  is  a 
mere  abuse  of  words.  Still  less  is  it  to  be  heard 
say,  without  some  impatience,  that  there  is  safety 
in  her  communion  only,  as  she  has  descended 
from  the  Apostles,  through  all  the  changes  and 
abominations  that  have  intervened." 

After  an  examination  of  the  primitive  writers 
he  proceeds :  "  I  am  aware  that  in  St.  Jerome's 
time  there  existed  generally,  though  by  no  means 
universally,  this  difference  between  the  bishop 
and  the  presbyter,  namely,  that  to  the  former  was 


TESTIMONY  OP  BOWDLER. 


79 


then  confided  the  power  of  ordination.  The 
transition  from  perfect  equality  to  absolute  su- 
periority was  not  suddenly  effected  ;  it  was  the 
growth  of  time,  not  of  years,  but  of  centuries, 
the  distinction  of  authority  or  office  preceding 
that  of  order  or  degree  in  the  Church,  and  being 
introductory  to  it.  With  the  former  I  have  no 
concern,  it  being  sufficient  to  show,  that  as  a 
distinct  and  superior  order  in  the  Church,  Epis- 
copacy, in  the  modern  acceptation  of  the  term, 
did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles;  and 
that,  however  expedient  and  desirable  such  an 
institution  might  be,  it  cannot  plead  the  sanction 
of  apostolic  appointment  or  example. 

"  It  may  be  difficult  to  fix  the  period  exactly 
when  the  episcopate  was  first  recognized  as  a 
distinct  order  in  the  Church,  and  when  the  con- 
secration of  bishops,  as  such,  came  to  be  in  gei  - 
eral  use.  Clearly  not,  I  think,  when  Jerome 
wrote.  Thus  much,  at  least,  is  certain,  namely, 
that  the  government  of  each  Church,  including 
the  ordination  of  ministers,  was  at  first  in  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery ;  that  when  one  of  that 
body  was  raised  to  the  office  of  president,  and  on 
whom  the  title  of  bishop  was  conferred,  it  was 
simply  by  the  election  (co-optatio)  of  the  other 
presbyters,  whose  appointment  was  final,  requir- 
ing no  confirmation  or  consecration  at  the  hands 
of  any  other  prelates,  and  that  each  Church  was 
essentially  independent  of  every  other. 

"  If,  then,  all  this  be  so,  there  seems  to  be  an 


80 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


end  to  the  question;  for,  under  whatever  circum- 
stances the  privilege  of  ordaining  was  afterwards 
committed  to  the  bishop,  he  could  of  necessity 
receive  no  more  than  it  was  in  their  power  to 
bestow,  from  whom  he  received  it,  who  w^ere  co- 
ordinate presbyters,  not  superiors.  At  whatever 
period,  therefore,  it  were  adopted,  and  with  what- 
ever uniformity  it  might  be  continued,  and  what- 
ever of  value  or  even  authority  it  might  hence 
acquire,  still,  as  an  apostolical  institution,  it  has 
none ;  there  is  a  gap  which  can  never  be  filled, 
or  rather,  the  link  by  which  the  whole  must  be 
suspended  is  wanting,  and  can  never  be  supplied. 
There  can  be  no  apostolical  succession  of  that 
which  had  no  apostolical  existence  ;  whereas,  the 
averment,  to  be  of  any  avail,  must  be,  not  only 
that  it  existed  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  but 
was  so  appointed  by  them,  or  that  there  can  be 
no  true  Church  without  it."  ("  Bowdler's  Letters 
on  Apostolic  Succession,"  pp.  32-48.) 

That  two  laymen  of  ability  and  learning,  after 
a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  should 
come  to  the  same  conclusion,  and  this  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  general  current  of  opinion  in  their 
Church,  is  certainly  strongly  confirmatory  of  the 
position  here  maintained,  and  should  induce  our 
intelligent  laity  to  investigate  the  basis  of  a  sys- 
tem which,  confessedly,  is  doing  so  much  damage 
to  the  cause  of  peace  and  unity  in  our  com- 
munion, and  promoting  schism  among  the  com- 
mon brotherhood  of  the  faith. 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

ROMAN  CATHOLIC  TESTIMONY. 

In  giving  the  language  of  Drs.  Stanley,  Litton, 
Goode,  and  Riddle,  with  respect  to  the  Alexan- 
drian presbyterial  ordination,  we  have  presented 
the  concessions  of  some  of  the  ablest  of  living 
Episcopal  writers,  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  and 
we  now  offer 

ROMAN  CATHOLIC  TESTIMONY. 

The   concession   of   writers   of  the  Ronnau 
Church  strengthen  the  force  of  our  argument,  aw 
we  therefore  give  the  language  of  the  learned 

MORINUS, 

as  quoted  by  Dr.  Goode.  Dr.  Goode  remarks : 
"  It  is  most  important  to  observe,  that  even  the 
Romanist  Morinus,  one  of  the  most  learned  di- 
vines of  the  Church  of  Rome,  fully  admits,  and 
even  maintains  by  the  citations  of  various  testi- 
monies, that  this  was  for  a  long  period  the  cus- 
tom at  Alexandria,  referring  for  proof  particularly 
to  the  passage  of  Jerome,  just  cited,  and  vindica- 
ting the  meaning  I  have  affixed  to  it  against  ob- 


82 


THE  PRIiMITm;  EIRENICONT. 


Sections.  He  finds  fault,  indeed,  with  the  passage 
of  Eutychius  on  other  grounds,  but  with  that  I 
have  no  concern.  I  adduce  it  simply  to  show  that 
in  the  case  to  which  it  refers,  episcopal  consecra- 
tion was  not  considered  necessary  to  constitute  a 
presbyter  a  bishop."  Now,  on  this  point,  Morinus 
himself  speaks  thus  :  "  St.  Jerome  testifies  that 
at  Alexandria,  from  the  time  of  Mark  the  Evan- 
gelist to  Dionysius,  that  is,  for  the  space  of  nearly 
two  hundred  years,  the  bishops  were  inaugurated 
without  any  consecration,  but  the  presbyters  of 
Alexandria,  when  their  bishop  was  dead,  elected 
one  of  their  own  order,  aud  belonging  to  their 
own  church,  and  placed  him  upon  the  higher 
throne,  and  called  him  bishop.  By  which  exam- 
ple, truly,  it  most  clearly  appears  that  neither 
•Terome  nor  the  Alexandrians  recognized  that 
character  by  which  a  bishop  is  said  to  be  above  a 
presbyter,  since  no  prayer,  no  ceremony,  no  form 
of  words,  was  used  above  the  presbyters  elected. 
You  will  sav  he  mentions  none,  but  it  cannot 
well  be  concluded  that  there  was  none,  since  it 
is  certain  that  authors  do  not  always  relate  every- 
thing that  took  place.  This  indeed  is  true,  but 
the  scope  and  words  of  St.  Jerome  do  not  admit 
of  this  objection.  For  he  contends,  that  a  pres- 
byter is  the  same  as  a  bishop,  and  proves  this 
from  the  peculiar  and  unusual  custom  of  the  Al- 
exandrians, who  made  use  of  no  consecration,  no 
words  to  consecrate  as  a  bishop  the  presbyter 


TESTIMONY  OF  MORINUS. 


elected  by  them,  but  only  placed  him  on  the 
throne,  and  called  him  bishop." 

Referring  to  the  "Breviarum"  of  Liberatus, 
p.  122,  he  says :  "  It  clearly  follows  from  it  that 
for  at  least  two  hundred  years  after  Alexander, 
the  presbyters  of  Alexandria,  not  the  bishops, 
elected  the  patriarch  ;  and  that  neither  the  pres- 
byters nor  the  bishops,  nor  any  other  person,  laid 
their  hands  on  the  person  elected." 

Bishop  Jewel  states  that  it  was  the  custom  "  for 
the  newly  elected  patriarch  to  place  the  hand  of 
his  deceased  predecessor  on  his  own  head," 

The  statement  of  Jewel  is  confirmed  by  Bing- 
ham in  his  "  Antiquities." 

The  inquiry  here  arises  —  Did  the  succession 
flow  through  the  hand  of  the  dead  patriarch,  or 
from  the  living  presbyters,  and  which  was  the  bet- 
ter of  the  two  ? 


CHAPTER  IX. 


OBJECTIONS. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  this  remarkable  fact  in 
ecclesiastical  history  has  much  troubled  our  more 
extravagant  and  exclusive  Episcopal  writers,  and 
among  others, 

BISHOP  PEARSON, 

of  revered  and  honored  memory. 

This  learned  writer  professes  to  discredit  the 
testimony  of  Eutychius,  in  his  "  VindiciEe  Igna 
tianae,"  while  at  the  same  time,  he  quotes  him 
elsewhere  as  an  authority  with  respect  to  the 
chronology  of  the  early  Roman  Church. 

Gibbon  remarks  (vol.  i.  p.  108) :  "  The  ancient 
state,  as  it  is  described  by  Jerome,  of  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  of  Alexandria,  receives  a  remark- 
able confirmation  from  the  patriarch  Eutychius 
(Annal.,  torn,  i.,  p.  330,  vers.  Pococke),  whose 
testimony  I  know  not  how  to  reject,  in  spite  of 
all  the  objections  of  the  learned  Pearson  in  his 
'  Vindiciae  Ignatianae.' "  And  page  131,  "  Its  in- 
ternal evidence  would  be  a  sufficient  answer  to 
all  that  Pearson  has  urged."    On  a  question  of 


EXAMINATION  OF  OBJECTIONS.  85 


this  kind,  we  may  regard  Gibbon  as  an  impartial 
and  reliable  authority. 

OTHER  OBJECTIONS. 

We  find,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  Bishop 
Parker  and  Dr.  Hiekes ;  and  in  our  times,  Hobart, 
Bovvden,  Cooke,  Chapin,  Jarvis,  Boyd,  and  Per- 
cival,  offering  criticisms  similar  to  those  of  Pear- 
son and  Palmer. 

As  a  specimen,  Dr.  Jarvis  objects  that  "  Selden, 
who  made  this  discovery,  had  not  a  profound 
knowledge  of  Arabic,  nor  was  he  well  versed  in 
ecclesiastical  history."  Such  language  borders  on 
the  ludicrous.  Dr.  Pococke  assisted  Selden  in  his 
translation,  and  according  to  the  "  Encyclopasdia 
Britannica,'*  "  Pococke  was  for  many  years  the 
first  orientalist  in  Europe."  He  afterwards  pub- 
lished the  complete  works  of  Eutychius,  to  which 
edition  Gibbon  refers. 

Of  Selden,  Bishop  Jebb  writes :  "  Of  this  great 
man's  attainments,  it  were  superfluous  to  speak  ; 
his  life,  properly  told,  would  be  a  complete  history 
of  the  learning  of  his  time."  Lord  Clarendon 
says :  "  Mr.  Selden  was  a  person  whom  no  char- 
acter can  flatter,  or  transmit  in  any  expressions 
equal  to  his  mind  and  virtue.  He  was  of  such 
stupendous  learning,  in  all  kinds  and  in  all  lan- 
guages, as  may  appear  from  his  excellent  and 
transcendent  writings,  that  a  man  would  have 
thought  he  had  been  entirely  conversant  among 


86 


THE  PRIMITIYE  ElftENlCON. 


books,  and  had  never  spent  an  hour  but  in  reading 
and  writing."  Archbishop  Usher,  the  greatest 
scholar  of  his  century,  in  his  funeral  sermon  over 
Selden,  said  :  "  He  looked  upon  the  deceased  as 
so  great  a  scholar,  that  himself  was  scarce  worthy 
to  carry  his  books  after  him  "  (Elrington's 
"  Usher,"  p.  273). 

To  the  objections  of  Palmer,  we  have  given  the 
reply  of  Dr.  Litton. 

Bowden,  Hobart,  and  Cooke  have  endeavored  to 
disparage  the  testimony  of  Eutychius,  by  charging 
him  with  ignorance  of  the  facts,  misstatements, 
etc.  To  such  objections,  and  to  the  charge  that  the 
work  has  been  garbled,  we  reply  with  Mosheim, 
that  Eutychius  was  "  the  most  learned  man  of  his 
nation,  in  medicine  and  theology,"'  in  a  most 
learned  time;  with  Giesler,  "  It  is  at  least  certain 
that  the  part  which  is  contradictory  to  the  usage 
of  later  times,  has  not  been  interpolated,  and  so 
far  has  a  historic  value."  And  in  the  apt  words  of 
Stillingfleet,  in  answer  to  Pearson  ("  Ireiiicum  " 
p.  300),  "  Neither  is  the  authority  of  Eutychius  so 
much  to  be  slighted  in  this  case,  coming  so  near  to 
Hierome  as  he  doth,  who  doubtless  had  he  told 
us,  that  Mark  and  Ananias,  etc.,  did  all  these  with- 
out any  presbyters,  might  have  had  the  good  for- 
tune to  have  been  quoted  with  as  much  frequency 
and  authority  as  the  anonymous  author  of  the 
martyrdom  of  Timothy  in  '  Photius '  (who  there 
unhappily  follows  the  story  of  the  seven  sleepers), 


EXAMiNAtlON        OBJECTtONS.  8T 


or  the  author  of  the  '  Apostolical  Constitutions ' 
whose  credit  is  everlastingly  blasted  by  the  excel- 
lent Mr.  Daille,  on  the  counterfeit  writings  of  the 
Apostles,  so  much  do  men's  interest  tend  to  the 
enhancing  or  abating  the  esteem  and  credit  both 
of  the  dead  and  living." 

REV.  J.  M.  NEALK. 

This  author,  in  his  recent  elaborate  history  of 
the  "  Church  of  Alexandria,"  endeavors  to  over- 
throw the  testimony  of  Eutychius,  by  charging 
him  with  ignorance.  He  contends  that  the  act  of 
the  presbyters  was  simply  an  election.  One  of  his 
most  prominent  authorities,  Le  Quien,  he  con- 
fesses, was  "  ignorant  of  Arabic."  Neale  offers 
nothing  new  in  his  argument. 

FULL  STATEMENTS  OF  OPPONENTS. 

In  order  that  our  readers  may  see  all  that  may 
be  said  on  the  opposite  side  of  this  vital  question 
on  the  point  of  succession,  we  give  the  full  argu- 
ments of  three  of  the  most  recent  exclusive  epis- 
copal writers. 

DR.  PERCIVAL. 

And  first,  Percival  on  the  "  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion," p.  26,  writes :  "  The  next  precedent  cited,  is 
that  of  Alexandria,  where  it  is  pretended  that,  for 
about  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christy 
the  presbyters  ordained  the  bishop.  This  rests 
upon  the  supposed  testimony  of  two  witnesses  — 


88 


THE  PRIAIITIVE  ElKENlCON. 


St.  Jerome,  who  lived  one  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
and  Eutychius,  who  lived  seven  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  time  mentioned.  I  wonder  what 
would  be  said  of  any  churchman  who  would  at- 
tempt to  found  a  precedent  on  two  single  wit- 
nesses so  far  removed.  However,  let  us  consider 
what  their  evidence  amounts  to.  St.  Jerome 
speaks  thus  :  '  At  Alexandria,  from  the  Evangelist 
Mark,  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius  the  bishops,  the 
presbyters  always  gave  the  name  of  bishop,  or 
nominated  to  be  bishop,  one  chosen  from  among 
themselves,  and  placed  in  a  higher  degi-ee.'  Ob- 
serve, firstly,  the  utmost  that  can  be  made  of  this 
passage,  by  itself,  is  that  the  presbyters  at  Alex- 
andria had  a  voice  in  the  appointment  of  the  pa- 
triarch, which  in  other  places  rested  with  the  bish- 
ops of  the  province.  And  even  this  is  not  dis- 
tinctly stated.  Jerome  does  not  say  the  bishop 
was  chosen  by  the  presbyters,  but  from  among 
them.  Nor  does  he  say  hy  whom  he  was  placed 
in  a  higher  degree.  Observe,  secondly,  that  St. 
Jerome  proves,  by  his  very  next  sentence,  that  he 
did  not  mean  that  the  presbyters  ordained  the 
patriarch  ;  for  he  subjoins,  '  For  what  does  a  bish 
op  do,  except  ordination,  which  a  presbyter  may 
not  do?'  Observe,  thirdly,  that  from  the  very 
passage  appealed  to  by  the  Presbyterians,  it  ap- 
pears that,  from  the  days  of  St.  Mark,  the  founder 
of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  inclusive,  the  Church 
there  had  always  been  governed  by  a  single  chief 


EXAMINATION  Of  PERCIVAL. 


80 


pastor,  called  bishop,  of  a  higher  degree  than 
presbyters;  so  that  episcopacy  is  admitted  to  be 
an  evangelical  arrangement.  Thus  the  chief 
evidence  witnesses  the  direct  contrary  to  that  for 
which  appeal  had  been  made  to  him.  Next,  let 
us  call  the  other  witness,  Eutychius,  a  writer  of 
the  tenth  century,  who  states  that '  St.  Mark  in- 
stituted twelve  presbyters  at  Alexandria,  who, 
upon  the  vacancy  of  the  See  of  Alexandria,  did 
choose  of  their  number  one  to  be  head  over  the 
rest,  and  the  other  seven  did  lay  their  hands  upon 
him,  and  made  him  patriarch.' 

"  But  observe,  firstly,  that  even  if  we  could  re- 
ceive Eutychius'  statements  without  exception, 
before  the  Presbyterians  could  derive  any  benefit 
from  it,  they  must  show  first,  reason  to  believe 
that  the  presbytery  here  spoken  of  was  not  an 
episcopal,  or  apostolic  college,  as  we  have  seen 
before;  that  all  the  early  commentators  under- 
stood the  presbytery  (1  Tim.  iv.  14)  to  be.  Sec- 
ondly, that  the  patriarch  thus  appointed,  received 
no  other  ordination,  and  then,  when  they  have 
done  all  this,  still  thus  much  will  remain  proved 
against  them,  by  this  very  story,  that  ecclesias- 
tical government,  by  a  community  of  presbyter.--, 
without  a  chief  pastor  over  them,  was  unknown 
at  Alexandria,  as  well  as  in  the  rest  of  Christen- 
dom. 

"  But  observe,  secondly,  that  if  Eutychius,  who 
lived  in  the  tenth  century,  ia  allowed  to  be  a  com- 


90 


THE  PfttMlTlVE  EIRENICON. 


petent  witness  of  what  happened  in  the  first  and 
second,  Severus,  a  writer  of  the  same  age  and 
country,  must  be  also  allowed  to  bear  testimony. 
Severus  distinctly  speaks  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters and  laity  being  all  concerned  in  the  appoint- 
ments of  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  in  the  very 
earliest  successions.  So  that  we  must  inquire 
further,  whether  any  other  historical  evidence  tliat 
may  be  adduced  on  the  point,  tends  most  to  con- 
firm Eutychius  or  Severus.  Now,  firstly,  it  is 
certain  that  all  the  other  churches  received  the 
canons,  called  apostolical,  which  require  a  bishop 
to  be  ordained  by  two  or  three  bishops,  and  recog- 
nize no  other  order  as  qualified  to  ordain.  Be- 
tween these  churches  and  Alexandria,  constant 
communication  was  kept  up,  sometimes  on  the 
most  friendly,  sometimes  on  the  most  unfriendly 
footing.  But  in  none  of  their  intercourse,  neither 
amicable  or  hostile,  is  this  point  of  difference 
ever  urged  ;  which,  sure,  it  would  have  been,  on 
one  side  or  the  other,  as  a  handle  of  reproach,  if 
it  had  really  existed.  Secondly,  the  learned 
Abraham  Echellensis  has  shown  that,  from  the 
beginning,  these  very  canons  were  received  by  the 
Church  of  Alexandria  itself;  so  that  the  Christians 
there  must  have  violated  their  own  laws,  had  they 
done  as  the  Presbyterians  suppose.  Thirdly,  we 
find  from  other  quarters  that,  early  as  A.  d.  300, 
there  were  not  less  than  one  hundred  bishops  in 
the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria.    Fourthly,  which 


EXAMINATION  OF  I'ERCIVAL. 


91 


seems  decisive  of  the  point,  we  find  a  question 
coming  before  a  council  of  Alexandria,  a.  d.  339, 
concerning  one  Ischryas,  who  acted  as  a  presbyter, 
pretending  to  have  received  orders  from  a  certain 
Colluthus.  But  when  it  was  made  plain  that 
Colluthus  himself  had  died  a  presbyter,  the  coun- 
cil decreed  that  all  on  whom  he  had  laid  hands 
should  be  regarded  as  mere  laymen.  Surely  the 
world  will  hardly  be  persuaded  that  the  council 
would  have  thus  denied  the  power  of  a  presby- 
ter to  ordain  even  a  presbyter,  if,  in  the  memory 
of  living  men  at  the  time,  their  patriarch  himself 
had  received  no  other  ordination.  What  then 
must  we  suppose  to  have  been  the  ground  of  the 
opinions  expressed  by  Jerome  ^nd  Eutychius  ? 
Simply  some  peculiar  privileges  in  the  election  of 
the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria  which,  from  several 
other  quarters,  we  learn  that  the  presbyters  of 
that  city  possessed. 

"  Abraham  Echellensis,  in  the  documents  relat- 
ing to  the  Alexandrian  Churcii,  which  he  has 
collected,  has  preserved  one  which  gives  an  ac- 
count of  a  discussion  between  the  bishops  of  the 
province  and  the  presbyters  of  the  city,  upon 
this  very  point;  in  which,  while  the  bishops  freely 
acknowledge  the  right  of  election  to  be  in  the 
presbyters,  they  as  freely  asserted  their  right  of 
veto  upon  such  election,  provided  the  persons 
elected  were  unworthy  of  the  office."  (See  Le 
Quien,  in  his  "  Oriens  Christianus  ;  Patr.  Alex.") 


92 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICOJf. 


As  to  the  statements  of  Percival,  it  may  be  ob- 
served :  — 

1st.  If  Jerome  is  not  tp  be  received  as  a  wit- 
ness, because  living  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  the  events  described,  why  is  Eusebius  more 
worthy  of  credence,  who  lived  as  long  after  the 
men  whose  succession  he  gives,  upon  what  he 
confesses  to  be  uncertain  testimony  ?  Without 
Eusebius,  Percival  could  not  pretend  to  present 
authority  in  regard  to  episcopal  succession.  Je- 
rome, moreover,  had  access  to  all  the  authorities 
which  were  in  the  hands  of  Eusebius. 

2d.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  were 
no  bishops  in  the  neighborhood  to  ordain  the 
patriarch.  Thiti  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  nearly 
all  the  objections  of  Percival. 

3d.  Because  Jerome  states  that  bishops  en- 
joyed in  the  fourth  century  one  privilege  beyond 
presbyters,  namely,  that  of  ordaining,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  had  always  been  regarded  as  essen- 
tial for  them  to  ordain,  or  that  they  received  the 
right  by  episcopal  succession,  or,  that  the  exclu- 
sive privilege  was  divinely  coiifcrnHl.  The  oppo- 
site is  clearly  established  in  this  discu:<sioii. 

4th.  Scriptural  Episcopacy,  it  is  here  asserted, 
always  existed  at  Alexandria  ;  episcopal  govern- 
ment,  but  not  episcopal  succession.  Confusion  on 
this  point  is  the  source  of  most  of  the  difficulties 
in  this  controversy. 

5th.  Percival  does  not  give  the  language  of 


EXAMINATION  OF  PERCIVAL. 


98 


Severus.  Entychius  conjinits  Jerome^s  testimony. 
Severus  contradicts  Jerome.  Severus  must,  there- 
fore, be  uiitriistworthy. 

Gtl).  Tlie  facts  prove  lliat  the  Alexandrian 
Cliurcli  did  not  receive  the  so-called  Apostolical 
Canons.  Dr.  Whittaker  states  in  his  "Disputa- 
tion of  Scripture  "  (p.  508)  :  "  The  canons  which 
go  under  the  name  of  the  Apostles  are  supposi- 
tions." Fulke,  his  contemporary,  styles  them 
"  the  counterfeit  canons,"  and  Whitgift  says  (vol. 
ii.  p.  121)  :  "  There  is  a  great  suspicion  in  the 
counterfeiting  of  them." 

7th.  Of  Abraham  Echellensis,  Johnson,  the 
biographer  of  Selden  (p.  288),  states :  "  This 
Abraham  Echellensis  was  a  Maronite  priest,  in 
the  pay  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  he  employed 
so  much  personal  abuse  in  an  attempt  to  refute 
Selden,  that  he  injured  his  own  reputation  more 
than  that  of  him  whom  he  attacked." 

8th.  What  occurred  after  the  year  300  has  no 
bearing  on  the  argument. 

9th.  In  regard  to  CoUuthus,  Stillingfleet  affirms 
that  the  ordinations  of  Colluthus  were  pronounced 
invalid,  because  conferred  "without  the  diocese" 
and  "  without  a  title."  They  were  void  because 
done  "  in  contempt  of  ecclesiastical  canons," 
canons  made  after  the  times  under  consideration. 
The  case  of  Colluthus  has  clearly  nothing  to  do 
with  our  subject. 


94 


THE  PKIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


DR.  JARVIS. 

We  proceed  now  to  give  all  that  a  learnt  i 
countryman,  Dr.  Samuel  F.  Jarvis,  has  to  oft»T 
in  opposition  to  the  ground  here  taken.  )n 
Chapin's  "  Primitive  Church"  (p.  200),  Dr.  Jarvis 
adds  in  a  note:  "In  Egypt  the  ancient  custom 
originally  was,  and  now  is,  to  have  a  threefold  im- 
position of  hands  in  the  creation  of  bishops.  The 
votes  of  the  people  were  given  and  numbered  by 
lifting  up  of  hands,  and  confirmed  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands  by  the  principal  laity.  The  presbyters 
laid  their  hands  twice  on  the  head  of  the  person 
elected,  first  in  giving  their  votes,  and  afterwards 
their  solemn  approbation  of  his  admission  to  the 
episcopate.  The  bishops  also  twice  laid  on  their 
hands,  first,  to  confirm  their  suffrage,  and  finally 
at  their  consecration.  The  following  is  the  order 
prescribed  in  the  ancient  constitutions  of  the 
Church  in  Alexandria."  After  quoting  canons 
to  this  effect,  Dr.  Jarvis  proceeds  :  — 

"  This  also  furnishes  an  answer  to  another 
argument  urged  against  this  conclusion.  During 
the  troubles  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  First,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  prove  that  the  churches  of 
Alexandria,  founded  by  St.  Mark,  were  originally 
Presbyterian.  An  extract  from  tjje  Annals  of 
Eutychius,  who  succeeded  Christobulus,  a.  d. 
933,  as  the  Melchite  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
was  employed  for  this  purpose.  Selden,  who 
made  this  discovery,  had  not  a  profound  knovvl- 


OBJECTIONS  OF  JARVIS. 


95 


edge  of  Arabic,  nor  was  he  well  versed  in  ecclesi- 
astical history.  His  translation,  therefore,  was 
inaccurate  in  several  points,  which  vitally  affected 
his'  argument ;  and  he  seems  not  to  have  been 
aware,  that  the  ancient  records  of  the  Egyptian 
Church  were  inaccessible  to  Eutychius,  and  that 
his  testimony  is  of  no  value,  except  with  regard 
to  the  history  of  the  Melchites.  These  facts 
show,  most  conclusively,  that  both  Caius  and 
Eutychius  were  mistaken,  and  that  at  Alexan- 
dria, as  elsewhere,  none  but  bishops* ordained. 
This  Jerome  himself  allows,  in  opposition  to  the 
authority  he  had  quoted,  if,  indeed,  it  is  quoted 
correctly." 

In  reply  to  this  statement  we  remark.  1st. 
How  ancient  the  custom  and  canons  alluded  to 
were,  the  writer  does  not  state.  They  were 
manifestly  later  than  the  period  we  are  discuss- 
ing, and,  therefore,  of  no  account  in  this  argu- 
ment. 

2d.  The  establishment  of  our  point  proves  that 
the  Church  of  Alexandria  was  Episcopal,  not 
Presbyterian,  and  therefore  one  allegation  of  Dr. 
Jarvis  is  false.  It  was  the  efforts  of  Laud  to 
change  the  ancient  principles  of  the  Church,  and 
to  establish  the  divine  right  of  episcopal  succes- 
sion, which  drove  Selden,  Owen,  Baxter,  and 
others  out  of  the  Church  of  England ;  which 
produced  the  schism  in  the  Church  ;  which  led 
to  the  civil  war;  at  the  restoration  inflicted  upon 


96 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ElKENICON. 


Christianity  the  stain  of  a  second  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's Day  ;  drove  from  their  pulpits  near  two 
thousand  of  the  best  ministers  of  England ; 
brought  down  the  Divine  judgment  in  the  form 
of  a  century  of  ecclesiastical  torpor ;  has  kept 
half  the  population  out  of  a  so  called  national 
Church ;  which  in  our  own  land  has  made  our 
Church  a  mere  handful  of  the  nation,  and  is 
rapidly  destroying  its  reputation  and  influence. 
Selden  did  not  try  to  establish  Presbyterian  ism, 
but  as  a  vfise  and  intelligent  layman  he  opposed 
ecclesiastical  tyranny.  His  friend.  Archbishop 
Usher,  endorsed  his  work  on  Eutychius,  and 
labored  to  restore  the  primitive,  moderate  Epis- 
copacy. He  failed,  and  the  Church  has  reaped 
the  sad  harvest.  The  unjust  animadversions  of 
Jarvis  on  Selden's  learning  we  have  already  no- 
ticed (p.  85),  and  we  find  nothing  further  in  this 
author's  statement  that  needs  a  reply. 

DR.  MAHAN. 

The  latest  effort  to  disprove  the  statements  of 
Jerome,  Eutychius,  and  others,  we  find,  is  that 
of  Professor  Milo  Mahan,  who,  in  his  "  Church 
History"  (p.  227),  writes:  "  In  the  constitution 
of  the  Episcopate  of  Alexandria  there  seems  to 
have  been  some  departure  from  the  general  prac- 
tice of  the  Church,  the  exact  nature  of  which, 
however,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  The 
amplest  account  of  the  peculiarity  is  given  by 


EXAMINATION  OF  MAHAN. 


97 


Eutychius,  a  patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the  tenth 
century."  After  giving  the  language  of  Euty 
chius,  he  proceeds:  "St.  Jerome  gives  substan- 
tially the  same  account,  except  that  he  makes  no 
mention  of  ordination  by  the  eleven,  and  says 
the  change  of  custom  occurred  in  the  times  of 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius. 

"  In  the  silence  of  contemporaries  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  from  the  vagueness  and  lateness  of  the 
testimony  given,  there  is  room  for  the  conjecture 
that  Egypt,  instead  of  being  divided  among  several 
local  sees,  was  governed  for  a  while  by  a  college 
of  twelve  chief  pastors  residing  in  Alexandria,  the 
bishop  of  that  see  being  at  their  head.  Nothing 
could  be  more  natural  than  such  an  arrangement, 
at  the  first  planting  of  the  Church.  In  later 
times,  however,  as  the  Gospel  extended  into  the 
provinces,  it  would  be  found  inconvenient,  and 
each  important  city  would  desire  a  resident 
bishop  of  its  own.  This  is  the  most  natural  in- 
ference, if  the  language  of  Eutychius  be  taken 
to  the  letter.  For  the  presbyters  mentioned  by 
him  were  presbyters  who  had  power  to  ordain  ; 
but  presbyters  with  power  to  ordain  are  the  same 
as  bishops,  in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  word. 
As  St.  Jerome  says,  in  connection  with  this  sub- 
ject, '  What  does  a  bishop  do,  except  ordination, 
which  a  presbyter  cannot  do?' 

"  This  is  said  on  the  supposition  that  the  eleven 
both  elected  and  ordained  their  patriarch.  But, 
7 


98 


as  that  point  is  not  certain,  resting  only  on  the 
testimony  of  a  writer  manifestly  inaccurate  in 
language,  and  living  six  centuries  after  the  period 
of  which  he  speaks,  the  peculiarity  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria  may  have  been  merely  that  of 
electing  a  bishop  out  of  a  close  corporation  of 
twelve  presbyters,  instead  of  choosing  from  the 
Church  at  large,  as  was  customary  in  other 
places." 

In  a  note  he  adds:  "  It  is  fatal  to  the  theory 
of  any  radical  or  even  marked  change  in  the 
church  government  of  Egypt,  that  the  period  in 
question  is  covered  by  the  names  of  Origen. 
Meletius,  and  others,  who  belonged  to  an  opposi- 
tion party,  and  who  certainly  would  have  made 
themselves  heard,  if  the  ruling  party  had  been 
guilty  of  innovations.  .  .  .  It  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  remind  the  reader,  that  the  term  Pres- 
byter, like  the  term  Priest,  or  Sacerdos,  was  often 
used  as  a  name  for  the  ministry  in  general,  and, 
therefore,  might  be  applied  to  any  order.  2  John, 
i.  3;  John,  i.  1 ;  Peter,  v.  1." 

We  have  here,  then,  all  that  an  ingenious 
wTiter,  in  the  light  of  the  past,  can  offer,  to  oflfset 
the  historical  testimony  given  with  regard  to  the 
omission  of  episcopal  consecration  and  succes- 
sion in  the  famous  Alexandrian  Church.  Such 
a  statement  virtually  yields  the  point  in  dispute. 
The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  not  here  disputed, 


EXAMINATION  OF  MAHAN. 


99 


and  as  the  fact  that  there  were  no  bishops  in  Al- 
exandria, or  in  the  neighborhood,  after  the  death 
of  the  patriarch,  cannot  be  controverted,  there  re- 
mains nothing  in  the  remarks  of  this  author  which 
requires  an  answer. 


CHAPTER  X. 


RECAPITULATION. 

We  propose  briefly  to  recapitulate  the  argu- 
ments by  which  (as  we  think)  we  have  estab- 
lished the  fact  that  in  the  patriarchal  church  of 
Alexandria,  the  patriarch  was  elected  by  presby- 
ters for  the  space  of  over  two  hundred  years,  and 
had  no  episcopal  consecration  whatever. 

1st.  In  the  first  place,  we  gave  the  clear,  de- 
cisive testimony  of  Jerome,  and  of  a  contempo- 
rary, who  lived  within  a  century  after  the  custom 
described. 

2d.  We  presented  the  full  and  particular  state- 
ment of  Eutychius,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,*  and 
of  another  later  Egyptian  writer,  confirming  the 
facts. 

3d.  We  showed  by  standard  writers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  during  the  Reformation,  that 
these  facts  were  well  known  at  that  time. 

4th.  The  statements  of  the  most  learned  writers 
of  the  next  century  were  presented,  confirming 
the  same. 

5th.  Four  of  the  ablest  living  scholars  of  the 


RECAPITULATION. 


101 


Church  of  England  were  quoted,  as  acknowledg- 
ing the  truth  of  our  statement. 

6th.  As  evidence  of  the  views  of  Roman  Cath- 
olic writers,  the  language  of  Morinus  was  given, 
who  fully  acknowledged  the  truth  of  the  histor- 
ical fact  we  have  undertaken  to  substantiate. 

7th.  Gibbon  was  quoted,  answering  the  objec- 
tions of  Bishop  Pearson  and  others,  who  have 
sought  to  establish  the  exclusive  view. 

8th.  After  meeting  the  objections  of  Jarvis, 
Palmer,  Percival,  and  Mahan,  we  closed  the  ar- 
gument with  an  historical  criticism  by  an  accom- 
plished barrister  of  the  English  Church,  who  feels 
compelled,  after  full  investigation,  to  acknowl- 
edge that  the  testimony  of  history  on  this  point 
is  satisfactory  and  conclusive. 

Such  is  the  testimony  offered  with  regard  to 
this  custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 

The  evidence  is  more  certain  and  accurate  than 
we  possess  with  respect  to  the  manner  of  ordina- 
tion of  any  other  primitive  church.  There  has 
been  more  dispute  with  respect  to  Ignatius,  and 
the  Church  of  Antioch,  than  with  regard  to  the 
statements  of  Eutychius. 

With  regard  to  the  Church  of  Antioch,  Jerome 
differs  from  Origen  and  Eusebius,  and  these  from 
other  writers. 

With  respect  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  no  one 
knows  whether  St.  Peter  visited  Rome  or  not. 


102 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


There  is  no  satisfactory  proof  to  this  effect,  while 
the  probabilities  are  that  he  never  saw  Rome. 

No  one  can  tell  who  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  there  are  at  least  twelve  differing  opin- 
ions as  to  who  were  the  first  six  bishops,  and  their 
order.  Truly,  as  Stillingfieet  remarks,  "  The  suc- 
cession of  Rome  is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber,"  and 
its  doctrine  more  muddy  than  its  succession.  Our 
knowledge  of  the  ancient  successions  is  almost 
wholly  derived  from  Eusebius,  while  Jerome  had 
access  to  the  same  authors  as  the  former  writer. 

The  following  important  results  flow  from  the 
establishment  of  the  historical  point  we  have 
ventilated  :  — 

1st.  There  was  no  uniform  manner  of  ordina- 
tion established  by  the  Apostles. 

2d.  Consecration  by  presb\-ters  was  practiced  in 
one  of  the  great  patriarchates  for  more  than  two 
centuries  immediately  succeeding  the  Apostles, 
or,  election  without  consecration  was  deemed 
suHicient  to  constitute  a  bishop. 

3d.  Succession  through  presbyterian  ordination 
was  acknowledged  by  the  Primitive  Church,  Alex- 
ander and  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  being  among 
the  foremost  members  of  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Bingham  states  that  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria 
consecrated  all  the  bishops  of  his  vast  province, 
and  claimed  the  right  of  ordaining  all  the  elders 
and  deacons  ;  consequently,  the  celebrated  Atha- 
nasius had  but  a  presbyterian  succession,  and  bis 


RECAPITtJLATIOlT. 


103 


orders  were  worth  as  mucli  as  those  of  the  Meth- 
odist Bishop  Asbury,  and  the  Lutheran  superin- 
tendents. 

4th.  The  Church  of  England  was  right  in  al- 
lowing the  full  validity  of  presbyterian  orders. 

5th.  All  those  who  acknowledge  such  ordina- 
tion are  both  Anglican  and  Primitive ;  those  who 
deny  it  are  opposed  both  to  the  Anglican  and 
Primitive  Churches. 

6th.  Archbishop  Laud,  in  introducing  among 
Protestants  the  doctrine  that  episcopal  orders  are 
alone  valid,  was  an  ecclesiastical  innovator,  and  a 
promoter  of  schism. 

7th.  That  his  system,  as  adopted  by  the  Non- 
jurors and  Tractarians  and  their  sympathizers,  is 
founded  on  error,  and  is  chargeable  with  the  dis- 
sensions which  have  divided,  distracted,  and 
deeply  injured  the  reputation  and  influence  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  consequently,  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  member  of  the  same,  as  it  is  of 
all  Christians,  persistently  and  earnestly  to  oppose 
and  resist  the  unchurching,  exclusive  dogma. 

8th.  That  to  those  Christians  who  hold  to 
Biblical,  spiritual,  and  evangelical  views  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  as  opposed  to  those  which  are 
ecclesiastical,  sacrificial,  and  legal  merely,  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  healing  all  divisions  with  respect 
to  church  orders  and  government. 

The  general  acknovvledgment  of  the  historical 
fact  that  the  Alexandrian  Church  was  not  epis- 


104 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


copal  in  its  consecration,  and  consequently  in  its 
succeaaioii,  though  governed  by  a  patriarch,  while 
the  churches  of  Antioch  and  Rome  were  possibly 
so,  and  all  the  churches,  by  common  agreement, 
soon  after  the  Apostles,  under  the  superintendence 
of  bishops,  by  the  custom  of  the  Church,  and  not 
by  divine  law  (as  Augustine  and  Jerome  and  oth- 
ers directly  assert),  virtually  settles  the  controver- 
sies which  afflict  the  Church,  and  "  Ephraim  will 
no  longer  envy  Judah,  nor  Judah  vex  Ephraim." 

The  orders,  ministry,  and  sacraments  of  the 
Protestant  Evangelical  churches  of  England, 
America,  and  Germany,  will  be  mutually  ac- 
knowledged ;  the  way  will  be  opened  for  agree- 
ment upon  the  primitive  basis  of  Episcopacy,  to 
which  happy  result  the  claims  of  extreme  Episco- 
palians have  presented  the  most  formidable  obsta- 
cles. 

Then  the  practice  of  reordination  by  the  Epis- 
copal, or  any  other  church,  will  be  sustained  only 
on  the  grounds  on  which  Archbishop  Leighton 
consented  to  be  reordained,  and  on  which  the 
Church  of  Geneva  reordained  those  who  came  to 
them  from  the  Church  of  France,  as  Bingham 
has  stated  —  i.  e.,  that  every  church  has  an  inher- 
ent right  to  arrange  its  form  of  ordination,  and 
that  the  repetition  of  the  rite  is  simply  a  solemn 
imprecation  for  a  renewal  of  ministerial  grace  ; 
terms  similar  to  those  upon  which  Bishop  Heber 
invited  the  Lutheran  ministers  of  India  to  con- 


RECAPITULATION. 


106 


form  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  same  on 
which  Archbishop  Bramhall  received  the  conform- 
ing Presbyterian  clergy  of  Ireland.  On  no  other 
grounds  can  reordination  be  rightfully  received  or 
allowed,  and  those  who  have  permitted  or  received 
it  with  the  opposite,  exclusive  view  have  departed 
from  the  principles  of  the  Primitive  and  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  churches,  influenced,  no  doubt,  by 
the  wide-spread  misconceptions  which  have  so 
long  prevailed  on  this  subject. 

Let  the  view  and  practice  of  the  Primitive 
Church  be  substituted  for  this  novelty  of  Romish 
origin;  let  truth  take  the  place  of  error;  let  the 
mistake,  conscientiously  made,  be  rectified  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  facts  of  history,  and  on  princi- 
ples both  of  charity  and  sound  policy  ;  then  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  will  become,  as  she 
is  prepared  to  be  (instead  of  holding  a  negative 
and  subordinate  position),  the  Macedonian  Pha- 
lanx, the  Tenth  Legion,  the  Old  Guard,  in  the 
coming  fierce  onset  upon  the  power  of  the  evil 
spirit,  the  god  of  this  world. 

Such  are  the  conclusions  which  we  submit  to 
the  candid  reader.  If  Jerome  and  Hilary,  Euty- 
chius,  Severus,  and  Elmacinus,  Whitgift  and 
Willet,  Usher  and  Stillingfleet,  Morinus  and 
Gibbon,  were  deceived  ;  if  Stanley,  and  Goode, 
and  Litton,  and  Riddle,  arid  Garrat,  and  a  multi- 
tude of  the  most  learned  men  of  other  churches, 
have  misconceived  the  truth,  let  wiser  and  better 


106 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


scholars  give  proof  to  this  effect.  Otherwise  let 
the  truth  be  generally  received  ;  let  the  one  evan- 
gelical ministry  be  acknowledged,  whether  epis- 
copal or  presbyterian  in  its  succession,  both  primi- 
tive and  both  valid,  both  equally  blessed  of  the 
Lord,  and  sharing  his  abounding  grace  and  favor, 
and  let  all  the  people  say  amen  ! 


CHAPTER  XI. 


TESTIMONY  FROM  NON-EPISCOPAL  STANDARD 
WRITERS. 

As  there  are  some  who  do  not  think  episcopal 
ordination  or  consecration  necessary  to  give  value 
to  a  writer's  statements,  and  that  an  author  may 
be  as  learned  and  reliable  outside  the  Episcopal 
Church  as  within  it,  we  present  the  confirmatory 
evidence  of  a  few  leading  non-episcopal  standard 
historians.  As  these  are  generally  text-books  in 
most  of  the  divinity  schools  in  this  country,  it  will 
be  evident  how  slight  is  the  prospect  of  the  spread 
of  exclusive  episcopal  claims  among  American 
Christians.    We  present  as  our  first  witness, 

on.  PHILIP  SCIIAFF, 

of  the  German  Reformed  Communion. 

Dr.  ScliafF,  who  is  second  to  no  living  author- 
ity on  a  point  like  this,  in  his  "  History  of  the 
Christian  Church"  (pp.  418,  419),  thus  writes: 
"  In  favor  of  the  second  view,  which  denies  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  episcopate  as  a  separate 
office  or  order,  and  derives  it  by  way  of  human, 
though  natural  and  necessary  development  from 
the  presidency  of  the  original  congregational  pres- 


108 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


bjrterate,  are  the  following  facts:  The  custom  of 
the  Church  of  Alexandria,  where,  from  the  Evan- 
gelist Mark  down  to  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, the  twelve  presbyters  elected  one  of  their 
number  president,  and  called  him  bishop.  The 
fact  rests  on  the  authority  of  Jerome,  and  is  con- 
firmed independently  by  the  annals  of  the  Alex- 
andrian patriarch  Eutychius,  of  the  tenth  century. 
The  latter  states  that  Mark  instituted  in  that  city 
a  patriarch  (this  is  an  anachronism)  and  twelve 
presbyters,  who  should  fill  the  vacant  patriarchate 
by  electing  and  ordaining  to  the  office  one  of 
their  number,  and  then  electing  a  new  presbyter, 
so  as  always  to  retain  the  number  twelve.  He 
relates,  moreover,  that  down  to  the  time  of  Deme- 
trius, at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  there  was 
no  bishop  in  Egypt  besides  the  one  in  Alexan- 
dria ;  consequently,  there  could  have  been  no 
episcopal  ordination  except  by  going  out  of  the 
province." 

GIESLER. 

This  learned  writer  in  his  "  History"  (vol. i.  pp. 
56-65),  writes :  "  The  new  churches  everywhere 
formed  themselves  on  the  model  of  the  mother 
church  at  Jerusalem.  At  the  head  of  each  were 
the  elders,  presbuteroi,  episcopoi,  all  officially  of 
equal  rank,  though  in  several  instances  a  peculiar 
authority  seems  to  have  been  conceded  to  some 
one  individual  from  personal  considerations."  He 
gives  the  language  of  Jerome,  and  referring  to 


TESTIMONY  OP  GlESLEft. 


100 


Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  Theodoret,  remarks: 
'  It  is  remarkable  how  long  this  notion  of  the 
original  sameness  of  bishops  and  presbyters  was 
retained."  He  then  refers  to  Isidore,  Bernaldus, 
Gratian,  and  Lancelot,  as  Romanists  who  sus- 
tained this  view,  and  says  :  "  It  was  not  till  after 
the  Reformation  that  this  view  (the  original  iden- 
tity of  bishops  and  presbyters)  was  attacked. 
Since  this,  all  Catholics  as  well  as  the  English 
Episcopalians,  maintain  an  original  difference  be- 
tween bishop  and  presbyters."  .  .  .  .  "  After 
the  death  of  the  Apostles,"  he  continues,  "  and  the 
pupils  of  the  Apostles,  to  whom  the  general  direc- 
tion of  the  churches  had  been  conceded,  some  one 
among  the  presbyters  of  each  church  was  sufl'ered 
gradually  to  take  the  lead  in  its  affairs.  In  the 
same  irregular  way  the  title  of  episcopos,  bishop, 
was  appropriated  to  the  first  presbyter."  To  sus- 
tain this  view,  he  quotes  Ambrosiaster,  about  380, 
Jerome,  Hilary,  and  Eutychius,  with  respect  to 
the  Alexandrian  Church,  and  remarks  of  this  last 
author :  "  In  this  passage  it  is  at  least  certain  that 
the  part  which  is  contradictory  to  the  usage  of 
later  times  has  not  been  interpolated,  and  so  far 
has  an  historical  value.  Attempts  have  been 
made  to  explain  away  its  evidence  by  Morinus, 
Pearson,  Le  Quilen,  Renaudot,  Petavius,  and  es- 
pecially by  Abraham  Echeilensis." 


110 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


NEANUEU. 

In  this  authors  "  Church  History  "  (vol.  i.  p. 
190),  we  read:  "  Soon  after  the  apostolic  age,  the 
standing  office  of  president  of  the  presbytery 
nriust  have  been  formed  ;  which  president,  as  hav- 
ing preeminently  the  oversight  over  all,  was  desig- 
nated by  the  special  name  of  episcopos,  and  thus 
distinguished  from  the  other  presbyters.  Thus 
the  name  came  to  be  applied  exclusively  to  this 
presbyter,  while  the  name  presbyter  continued  at 
first  to  be  common  to  all  ;  for  the  bishops  as  pre- 
siding presbyters,  had  no  official  character  other 
than  that  of  the  presbyters  generally.  They  were 
only  primi  inter  pares.  Many  of  the  later  Fathers 
still  have  a  right  understanding  of  this  process  of 
the  matter.  (Hilary,  in  ep.  i.  ad  Timoth.,  c.  iii.) 
Omnis  episcopus  presbyter,  non  taraen  omnis  pres- 
byter episcopns  ;  hie  enim  episcopus  est,  qui  inter 
presbyieros  primus  est. 

"Jerome  (146,  ad  Evang.)  says  that  it  had 
been  the  practice  of  the  Alexandrian  Church, 
until  the  times  of  the  bishops  Hieroclas  and 
Dionysius,  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  for 
the  presbyters  to  choose  one  of  their  own  num- 
ber as  a  president,  and  call  him  bishop.  And  so 
also  there  may  be  some  foundation  of  truth  in 
the  account  of  Eutychius,  though  it  may  not  be 
wholly  true,  and  must  be  chronologically  false. 
This  person,  who  was  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in 
the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century,  relates  that  in 


tEStlMONY  OF  HERZOG. 


Ill 


the  Alexandrian  Church,  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Bishop  Alexander,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  the  following  arrangement  had  existed : 
There  was  a  college  of  twelve  presbyters,  one  of 
whom  presided  over  the  rest  as  bishop,  and  these 
presbyters  always  chose  their  bishop  out  of  their 
own  number,  and  the  rest  ordained  him." 

HERZOG. 

From  this  author's  "  Encyclopedia  of  Theol- 
ogy," edited  by  Dr.  Bomberger,  we  take  the  follow- 
ing extract.  Under  the  head  "  Bishop,"  we  read  : 
"  In  addition  to  having  the  general  direction  of 
affairs,  the  bishop  early  acquired  authority  to  ap- 
point and  ordain  elders.  But  even  in  this  respect 
there  was  for  several  centuries  no  uniform  rule ; 
for  whilst  the  Council  of  Ancyra  (314)  made  or- 
dination the  duty  of  bishops  of  the  larger  cities, 
and  forbid  country  bishops  or  presbyters  to  or- 
dain, the  distinction  was  not  strictly  observed  in 
other  parts  of  the  Church.  Thus,  in  Egypt, 
where  to  the  time  of  the  Patriarch  Demetrius 
(190-232),  there  were  no  bishops  but  the  one  in 
Alexandria,  and  the  presbyteries  exercised  episco- 
pal functions  still  later.  (See  Jerome,  ad  Evang., 
Giesler,  Ritchl.)  The  same  holds  of  the  Church 
in  Ethiopia  and  Scythia." 

THOMAS  POWELL. 

Thomas  Powell,  an  English  Wesleyan,  in  an 


112 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ElREiiflCON. 


elaborate  answer  to  Percival,  republished  by  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  on  page  130,  after  quot- 
ing the  statements  of  Jerome,  with  respect  to  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  proceeds  :  "  Here,  then,  it 
is  evident  that  Jerome  speaks  simply  of  the  fact 
and  custom  which  had  then,  in  his  day,  become 
established  as  to  what  bishops  do  and  presby- 
ters may  not  do ;  not  of  the  power  or  right  of 
presbyters,  or  that  they  could  not  by  divine  right 
do  what  the  bishops  did.  This  custom,  or  ec- 
clesiastical arrangement,  which,  for  the  honor  of 
the  bishop  and  his  church,  made  ordination  gen- 
erally a  prerogative  of  the  bishop's  office,  Jerome 
advises  the  presbytery  to  comply  with.  Therefore, 
'  they  may  not,'  because  of  this  custom,  especially 
without  the  bishop's  license,  ordain.  Any  other 
supposition  would  make  Jerome  contradict,  in  the 
same  page,  what  he  had  most  firmly  maintained. 

"  His  illustrations  show  the  same.  The  custom 
of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  was  evidently  in- 
tended by  him  as  an  example  of  ordination  by 
presbyters ;  else  why  mention  it  as  something 
which  had  ceased  in  his  day  to  be  common. 

"  The  presbyters  at  Alexandria,  prior  to  a.  d. 
250,  elected  one  of  themselves,  placed  him  in  the 
chair  (all  the  consecration  which  he  had),  and 
gave  him  his  title  of  bishop.  It  is  trifling  to  say, 
as  Episcopalians  do,  '  Perhaps  there  were  bishops 
present  who  laid  on  hands  and  consecrated  bim.' 
This  is  little  short  of  contradicting  Jerome,  He 


TEStmONt  OF  PO\rKLT.. 


certainly  makes  the  presbyters  the  doers  of  all 
that  was  done  in  making  the  bishop.  The  case 
of  the  army  making  its  general,  is  another  in- 
stance which  he  mentions  in  illustration  of  his 
position.  Every  school-boy  knows  that  the  Ro- 
man army  in  those  days  frequently  created  their 
generals  by  acclamation  ;  and  it  is  to  these  pro- 
ceedings Jerome  alludes;  the  lawfulness  of  the 
thing  was  no  more  necessary  to  his  argument, 
than  the  lawfulness  of  the  unjust  steward's  con- 
duct to  our  Lord's  argument.  It  is  the  fact,  and 
its  bearing,  which  are  important.  The  deacons, 
too,  then  appointed  one  of  themselves  as  their 
head,  calling  him  archdeacon  ;  so  the  presbyters 
make  a  presbyter  their  head,  and  call  him  bishop. 
The  army  made  the  general  ;  the  deacons,  the 
archdeacons;  and  the  presbyters  made  the  bishop. 
This  is  plainly  the  sense.  Presbyters,  then,  or- 
dained even  bishops,  in  the  See  of  Alexandria, 
from  the  time  of  St.  Mark  up  to  Heraclius  and 
Dionysius,  that  is,  for  about  the  first  two  hundred 
years  after  Christ. 

"  Stillingfleet  has,  moreover,  quoted,  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  view,  the  testimony  of  Eutychius,  the 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  expressly  affirms," 

etc  "  The  names,  it  seemed,  varied; 

the  thing  was  the  same.  There  never  was  any 
universally  established  manner  of  making  bish- 
ops, in  the  Christian  Church,  except  the  Scriptu- 
ral one,  by  which  every  man  is  made  a  minister 


114 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIREXICOK. 


and  bishop  at  once,  by  one  and  the  same  ordina- 
tion." 

XATHAX  BAXGS. 

Dr.  Bangs,  of  the  same  communion,  in  his 
work,  '•  An  Original  Church  of  Christ,"  remarks 
(p.  69),  after  quoting  Mosheim's  commendations 
of  the  learned  writings  of  Eutychius :  "Here 
then  was  a  patriarch  living  in  the  very  place,  and 
occupying  the  episcopal  chairs  of  the  very  church 
whose  annals  he  wrote,  and  which  annals  Mos- 
heim  tells  us  were  extant  in  his  time;  and  it  is 
from  these  same  annals,  called  by  Stillingfleet, 
Origines  Ecc/esicB  AlexandrincB  (Origin  of  the 
Alexandrian  Church),  which  the  learned  Selden 
published  in  Arabic,  that  the  above  testimony  is 
quoted.  Who  more  likely  to  ascertain  the  facts  in 
the  case  than  the  very  man  who  lived,  taught,  and 
wrote  in  the  very  city  and  church  whose  annals  he 
wrote  ?  Had  he  not  the  most  easy  access  to  the 
archives  of  the  Church  whose  overseer  he  was  ? 

'•  But,  says  our  objector,  that  testimony  of 
Eutychius  is  not  to  be  relied  on,  because  he  lived 
in  the  tenth  century!  Verily,  this  is  an  age  of 
discovery  I  How  long  did  Moses  live  after  the 
events  had  come  to  pass  which  he  narrates  ? 
Josepbus  must  be  muzzled  because  he  happened 
to  lived  upward  of  four  thousand  of  years  after 
Adam  was  taken  from  the  ground  ?  Indeed,  ac- 
cording to  this  rule,  by  a  summary  process  all  the 
historians,  except  those  who  have  confined  their 


TESTIMONY  OF  BANGS. 


115 


narratives  to  their  own  times,  must  pass  under 
the  knife  of  excision,  as  pseudo-annalists,  and 
therefore  worthy  of  death  !  Rollin,  Hume,  the 
autliors  of  the  '  Universal  History,'  Mosheim,  Mii- 
ner,  Haweis,  Gregory,  Dupin,  and  a  thousand 
others,  must  all  go  by  the  board,  as  unworthy  of 
credit,  because  they  wrote  of  times  so  long  ante- 
rior to  their  days  ! 

"  But  it  is  not  surprising  that  an  attempt 
should  be  made  to  set  aside  this  testimony  of 
Eutychius,  for  it  is  a  death-blow  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  essentiality  of  a  third  order  to  a  valid  ordi- 
nation. And  hence  the  most  unreasonable  de- 
mand, that  I  must  prove  that  Eutychius  did  in 
truth  express  himself  thus.  I  have  produced  the 
witness,  plain,  positive.  Let  them  if  they  can 
invalidate  the  truth  of  his  evidence.  I  have, 
moreover,  corroborated  the  truth  of  this  testimony 
by  that  of  a  number  of  others,  all  of  whom  testify 
to  the  general  fact,  namely,  that  presbyters  did 
ordain  other  presbyters,  and  also,  in  many  in- 
stances, superior  ministers  in  office.  Can  they 
invalidate  this  testimony?  They  know  that  they 
cannot.  I  lay  it  down  then  as  a  principle  ab  initio, 
that  the  right  of  ordination  was  in  the  college 
of  presbyters,  and  that  they  exercised  when, 
where,  and  as  long  as  they  pleased ;  and  that, 
whenever  they  were  divested  of  it,  it  was  either  a 
voluntary  act  of  their  own,  or  was  taken  from 
them  by  force." 


116  THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


ABEI,  STEVKN8. 

Dr.  Stevens,  an  eminent  living  Methodist  di- 
vine, in  his  "  Essay  on  Church  Polity,"  a  standard 
ill  his  denomination,  writes  (p.  58)  :  "  The  exam- 
ple of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  furnishes  a  com- 
plete vindication  of  iMr.  Wesley's  ordination  in 
the  American  Church."  He  then  quotes  Dr. 
Goode's  translation  of  Eutychius,  and  gives  Arch- 
bishop Usher's  concession  with  respect  to  the 
.ordination  by  Alexandrian  presbyters.  Bishop 
John  Emory,  in  his  "  Episcopal  Controversy  Re- 
viewed "  (pp.  90-100),  largely  ventilates  the  sub- 
ject, taking  the  same  view. 

It  must  be  evident  to  all,  from  the  extracts 
given  from  standard  iNIethodist  Divines,  that 
exclusive  Episcopacy  has  a  poor  prospect  of 
propagating  its  scheme  among  the  members  of 
this  leading  denomination  in  our  land.  The  suc- 
cess of  this  communion  is  a  testimony  to  the  ef- 
ficiency of  episcopal  government,  when  adapted 
to  the  age  and  people  where  it  is  employed. 

DU.  .JAMKS  r.  wii.sox. 

This  Presbyterian  author  was  eminent  for 
learning,  and  no  less  for  candor.  In  his  treatise 
on  "  The  Primitive  Government  of  Christian 
Churches,"  he  takes  ground  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  lay  eldership  of  his  own  communion,  as 
well  as  the  theory  of  episcopal  government. 
Concerning  Jerome's  letter  to  Evagrius,  he  writes 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILSON. 


117 


(p.  172)  :  "III  no  city  was  planted,  by  the  Apos- 
tles, more  than  one  church  ;  this  the  scriptural 
aiitl  snbseqnciit  history  of  the  Church  demon- 
states.  A  presbytery  existed  in  every  organized 
Church,  and  no  more  in  a  city;  consequently, 
one  presiding  presbyter,  who  afterwards,  by  cus- 
tom, for  prevention  of  schisms,  became  the 
bishop,  belonged  to  each  church,  and  conse- 
quently to  every  city  in  the  age  of  Jerome.  At 
the  period  of  the  forgeries,  which  bear  the  name 
of  the  pious  Ignatius,  parochial  Episcopacy  pre- 
vailed; but  they  betray  ignorance,  who  affirm  that 
presbyters  were  then  laymen,  or  that  such  a  grade 
is  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Seven  deacons  were  appointed  at  Jeru- 
salem ;  no  more  were  ordained  in  Rome.  This 
paucity,  and  the  nature  of  their  duties,  created 
popularity,  whilst  the  number  of  presbyters  dimin- 
ished their  importance.  Dissensions  arose  be- 
tween these  orders,  and  Augustine  has  recorded 
an  appeal  to  the  bishop  of  that  metropolis,  to 
decide  between  them.  Probably  this  letter  was 
sought  and  given  on  that  occasion;  or  it  may 
have  been  in  defense  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
who  was  persecuted  by  a  deacon  of  high  rank. 
Though  a  presbyter,  Jerome  never  officiated  as 
such  except  in  private  lectures  on  part  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  even  these  were  scarcely  delivered 
by  him  as  an  officer  either  at  Ronie  or  Beth- 
lehem. 


118 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


"  This  letter  could  not  have  been  the  offspring 
of  jealousy,  but  of  regard  to  the  truth.  His  lan- 
guage is  temperate,  his  arguments  rational,  and 
his  authorities  the  Scriptures ;  to  these  custom 
and  expediency  are  subordinate  —  canons  he  does 
not  even  name. 

"  From  the  practice  here  mentioned  of  the 
Church  at  Alexandria,  after  the  death  of  Mark, 
the  Evangelist,  the  existence  of  Episcopacy  from 
that  period,  which  was  apostolic,  has  been  in- 
ferred. There  could  have  been  little  difference 
between  the  state  of  things  in  apositolic  times, 
and  at  the  death  of  Mark.  In  both,  the  pres- 
byters had  their  ruling  elder  or  president;  upon 
them  custom,  founded  on  consent,  devolved  the 
responsibility  and  superintendency  of  the  pres- 
bytery, of  which  the  Church  of  Alexandria  fur- 
nished a  proof.  Jerome  shows  this  was  a  human 
innovation,  because  that  presbyter  and  bishop 
were  originally  the  same  office,  and  so  regarded 
by  Paul,  Peter,  and  John ;  also,  by  the  churches 
of  Phiiippi,  Ephesus,  and  those  of  Crete,  and 
other  places,  each  of  which  had  been  governed 
by  the  Common  Council  of  its  own  presbytery. 

"  The  election  of  such  a  presiding  presbyter  at 
Alexandria,  he  does  not  refer  either  to  antece- 
dent apostolic  precept  or  example,  but  expressly 
to  the  presbyters  themselves,  whose  election  con- 
stituted the  only  disparity.  Mark  held  the  high 
office  of  evangelist,  and,  as  such,  might  preside 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILSON. 


119 


in  any  church,  especially  of  his  own  planting. 
If  he  supplied  the  place  of  a  president,  in  ad- 
vanced age,  after  his  death  the  presbytery  of 
Alexandria,  acting  as  others,  must  have  chosen 
one  permanently,  the  growth  of  whose  power 
afterwards  kept  pace  with  the  customs  of  other 
churches.  The  assertion  by  Eutychius,  a.  d.  950, 
that  the  presbyters  in  Alexandria,  from  the  first, 
ordained  such  bishop,  is  incredible.  Reordination 
began  in  the  Cyprianic  age,  and,  in  Jerome's 
day,  was  performed  only  by  bishops ;  so,  also, 
was  the  ordination  of  presbyters.  '  What  does 
a  bishop,  ordination  excepted,  that  a  presbyter 
may  not  do?'  The  first  of  these  verbs  denoted 
a  present  and  continuous  acting;  the  second  is 
of  the  same  sort,  but  potential,  and  consequently 
expressing  a  future.  To  imagine  this  spoken  by 
Jerome,  of  early  times,  is,  therefore,  obviously 
incorrect.  When  he  wrote,  every  one  knew  that 
for  presbyters  to  ordain  was  contrary  to  the  laws 
and  canons  of  the  Church  ;  his  proof  of  their 
original  identity,  from  the  fact  that  presbyters 
migfit  now  perform  all  other  duties  of  bishops, 
required  the  exception.  But  every  mind  per- 
ceives that  the  establishment  of  the  identity 
destroyed  the  originality  and  authority  of  the 
exception. 

"  Any  other  interpretation  would  unnerve  his 
argument,  produce  self-contradiction,  and  con- 
flict with  the  fact  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by 


120 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


a  presbytery.  The  sameness  of  the  office  could, 
therefore,  never  be  reconciled  with  episcopal  ordi- 
nation, as  in  this  day.  The  confession  of  such 
an  exception,  if  it  referred  to  apostolical  times, 
immediately  after  showing  that  presbyters  of 
themselves  chose,  and  placed  in  his  seat,  and 
denominated  the  person  the  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, would  betray  weakness  in  the  extreme. 
Although  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  officiated 
in  their  respective  places  in  the  city,  they  were 
rather  a  parish  than  a  diocese,  being  one  church, 
whereof  they,  with  their  bishop,  who  was  one 
with  themselves,  constituted  the  presbytery  —  not 
a  church  session  of  mute  elders  —  every  pres- 
byter had  his  place  of  preaching  in  Alexandria. 
Had  the  presbyters,  so  chosen  to  preside,  been 
ordained  by  presiding  presbyters  of  cities  in 
Palestine  or  Syria,  instead  of  being  an  example 
of  the  introduction  of  the  custom  of  devolving 
the  responsibility  and  oversight,  which  had  be- 
longed to  the  presbytery,  on  one  of  their  number, 
it  would  have  proved  the  reverse,  and  contra- 
dicted the  position  that  presbyter  and  bishop 
denoted  at  first  the  same  office."  .... 

Page  175.  "  The  fanciful  idea  of  episcopal 
successorship  by  divine  right  was  repugnant  to 
the  views  of  Jerome,  who  has  unanswerably 
refuted  it  by  numerous  Scriptural  testimonies, 
and  demonstrated  his  meaning  and  consistency 
by  asserting  equally  of  presbyters,  that  they  were 


TESTIMONY  OF  COLEMAN. 


121 


successors  to  the  degree  of  the  Apostles.  '  Qui 
apostolico  gradui  succedentes '  (ad  Heliodorus, 
torn.  1,  p.  1)."  IreiiEeus  had  set  him  examples 
of  each  long  before. 

"  That  these  successors  of  the  Apostles  inherited 
their  gifts,  authority,  or  influence,  or  had  any 
other  ordination  than  that  of  their  co-presbyters, 
prior  to  the  Cyprianic  age,  has  never  been  shown 
to  us  by  credible  testimony.  His  defense  of 
presbyters  against  deacons,  his  use  of  the  word 
presbyter  without  the  imaginary  distinction  of 
preaching  and  lay  elders,  and  his  universal  silence 
with  regard  to  the  latter,  evince  that  Jerome  had 
no  idea  of  lay  presbyters.  He  is,  therefore, 
another  'witness  against  that  novel  order,  of 
which  not  a  vestige  has  been  found  in  the  first 
four  centuries.'  " 

LYMAN  COLEMAN. 

This  Congregational  divine,  in  his  "  Apostol- 
ical and  Primitive  Church  "  (ed.  1844,  p.  183),  thus 
writes:  "  We  have  next  the  authority  of  Jerome, 
who  died  a.  d.  426.  He  was  one  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  Latin  Fathers.  Erasmus  styles  him 
'  by  far  the  most  learned  and  eloquent  of  all  the 
Christians,  and  the  prince  of  Christian  divines.' 
Jerome  received  his  education  at  Rome,  and  was 
familiar  with  the  Roman,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  lan- 
guages. He  visited  Egypt,  and  travelled  exten- 
sively in  France  and  the  adjacent  countries.  He 


122 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


resided  in  the  course  of  liis  life  at  Constantinople, 
at  Antioch,  at  Jerusalem,  and  at  Bethlehem.  By 
his  great  learning,  and  extensive  acquaintance 
with  all  that  related  to  the  doctrines  and  usages 
both  of  the  Eastern  and  of  the  Western  Churches, 
he  was  eminently  qualified  to  explain  the  rights 
and  prerogatives  of  the  priesthood. 

"  But  does  Jerome  testify  to  the  rights  of  pres- 
byters to  ordain  ?  '  What  does  a  bishop,'  says 
he,  '  ordination  excepted,  which  a  presbyter  may 
not  do  ?  '  This,  however,  is  said  of  the  relations 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  as  they  then  were.  This 
restriction  of  the  right  of  ordaining  to  the  bishops 
alone  was  a  recent  innovation,  which  had  begun 
to  distinguish  them  from  the  presbyters,  and  to 
subvert  the  original  organization  of  the  Church. 
But  it  was  an  acknowledged  fact,  in  his  day,  that 
the  bishops  had  no  authority  from  Christ  or  his 
Apostles  for  their  unwarranted  assumptions.  'As 
the  presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  the  custom  of  the 
Church  that  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  placed 
over  them,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are 
above  presbyters  rather  by  the  custom  of  the 
Church,  than  by  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  appoint- 
ment, and  that  they  (both  bishdps  and  presbyters) 
ought  to  rule  the  Church  in  common,  in  imitation 
of  the  example  of  Moses.' 

"  He  reviews  the  same  subject  with  great  point 
in  his  famous  epistle  to  Evagrius,  or  more  prop- 
erly, in  modern  editions,  to  Evangelus.    He  re- 


TESTIMONY  OF  COLEMAN. 


123 


bukes  with  great  severity  certain  persons  who  had 
preferred  deacons  in  honor  '  above  presbyters,  i.  e. 
bishops.''  Having  thus  asserted  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  he  goes  on  to  prove  his 
position  from  Phil.  i.  1,  from  Acts  xx.  17,  28,  from 
Titus  i.  5,  from  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  from  1  Pet.  v. 
1.  '  Does  the  testimony  of  these  men  seem  of 
small  account  to  you?'  he  proceeds  to  say;  '  then 
clangs  the  gospel  trumpet, —  that  son  of  thun- 
der whom  Jesus  so  much  loved,  and  who  drank 
at  the  fountain  of  truth  from  the  Saviour's  breast, 
—  "  the  presbyter  to  the  elect  lady  and  her  chil- 
dren," 2  John  i.  1 ;  and  in  another  Epistle,  "  the 
presbyter  to  the  well  beloved  Gains,"  3  John  i. 
1.' "  Then  quoting  the  passage  with  reference  to 
the  Alexandrian  Cliurch,  Mr.  Coleman  proceeds: 
"  Here  the  presbyters  themselves  elect  one  of 
their  number  and  make  him  bishop,  so  that 
even  the  bishop  himself  is  ordained  by  the  pres- 
byters, if  indeed  it  can  be  called  an  ordination : 
if  not,  tlien  he  is  only  a  presbyter  still,  having  no 
other  right  to  ordain  than  they  themselves  have. 
Such,  Jerome  assumes,  is  the  usage  '  in  every 
country.''  There  was  but  one  ordination  for  bish- 
ops and  presbyters  in  his  time,  though  bishops 
had  now  begun  exclusively  to  administer  it.  But 
we  have  a  stream  of  testimonies  coming  down  to 
us  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  that  it  had  been 
the  custom  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  for 
bishops  and  presbyters  to  receive  the  same  ordi- 


124 


THE  PlilMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


nation.  This  is  another  consideration  of  much 
importance  to  show  tliat  presbyters  were  entitled 
to  ordain.  Having  themselves  received  episcopal 
ordination,  as  truly  as  the  bishops,  they  were 
equally  qualified  to  administer  the  same. 

"  But  Jerome  himself  attributes  to  presbyters 
the  original  rights  of  ordination.  '  Priests  who 
baptize,  and  administer  the  Eucharist,  anoint 
with  oil,  impose  hands,  instruct  catechumens,  con- 
stitute Levites  and  others  priests,  have  less  reason 
to  take  offense  at  us,  explaining  these  things,  or 
at  the  prophets  foretelling  them,  than  to  ask  of 
the  Lord  forgiveness.' 

"  The  relevancy  of  this  passage  depends  upon 
the  question,  who  are  the  sacerdotes,  priests,  of 
whom  Jerome  speaks?  He  is  commenting  upon 
Zephaniah  iii.  3  :  '  Her  princes  within  her  are 
roaring  lions,'  by  which  he  understands  her  pt\csts, 
saying,  '  I  am  aware  that  I  shall  offend  many  be- 
cause I  interpret  these  things  as  said  of  bishops 
and  presbyters.'  Then,  after  remarking,  at  length, 
upon  this  degenerate  priesthood,  he  adds  the  sen-  ' 
tence  above.  Jerome,  therefore,  ascribes  to  pres- 
byters and  bishops  alike  the  same  rights  to  con- 
stitute '  Levites  and  others  priests,'  applying  the 
terms  not  to  the  Jewish  priesthood,  but  to  the 
clergy  of  the  Christian  Church  in  his  day,  and  in- 
cluding both  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  same 
category,  as  possessing  equal  rights  to  baptize,  to 
ordain,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments. 


TF.STIMOKV  OF  COLEMAX. 


12o 


"  That  the  right  of  ordinatron  belonged  to  pres- 
byters is  evident  from  the  authority  of  Euty- 
chius,  of  Alexandria,  the  most  distinguished  writer 
among  the  Arabian  Christians  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. His  authority  confirms  the  testimony  of 
Jerome,  while  it  illustrates  more  clearly  the  usage 
of  the  Church  in  Egypt.  The  citation,  with  the 
translation,  is  from  Goode."  This  author  then 
gives  the  extract  from  Eutychius  with  Dr.  Goode's 
comments. 

Neander,  who  indorses  Dr.  Coleman's  work,  in 
his  introduction,  thus  speaks  of  episcopal  gov- 
ernment: "  This  change  in  the  mode  of  adminis- 
tering the  government  of  the  Church,  resulting 
from  peculiar  circumstances,  may  have  been  in- 
troduced as  a  salutary  expedient,  without  imply- 
ing any  departure  from  the  purity  of  the  Christian 
spirit.  When,  however,  the  doctrine,  as  it  gradu- 
ally gained  currency  in  the  third  century,  that 
the  bishops  are,  by  divine  right,  the  head  of  the 
Church,  and  invested  with  the  government  of  the 
same ;  that  they  are  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  by  this  succession  inherit  apostolical  au- 
thority ;  that  they  are  the  medium  through  which, 
in  consequence  of  that  ordination  which  they  have 
received,  merely  in  an  outward  manner,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  all  time  to  come,  must  be  transmitted 
to  the  Church,  —  when  this  becomes  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  we  certainly  must  perceive  in  these 
assumptions  a  strong  corrujjtion  of  the  purity  of 


126 


TItK.  PklMITIVt:  EIRENICON. 


the  Christian  system.  It  is  a  carnal  perversion 
of  the  true  idea  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  a 
falling  back  into  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
Instead  of  the  Christian  idea  of  a  church,  based 
on  inward  principles  of  communion,  and  extend- 
ing itself  by  means  of  these,  it  presents  us  with 
the  image  of  one  like  that  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, resting  on  outward  ordinances,  and  by  ex- 
ternal rites  seeking  to  promote  the  propagation 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  entire  perversion 
of  the  original  view  of  the  Christian  Church  was 
itself  the  origin  of  the  above  system  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  religion  —  the  germ  from  which 
sprung  the  Popery  of  the  Dark  Ages. 

"  We  hold  indeed  no  controversy  with  that  class 
of  Episcopalians  who  adhere  to  the  episcopal  sys- 
tem above  mentioned  as  well  adapted,  in  their 
opinion,  to  the  exigencies  of  their  Church.  We 
would  live  in  harmony  with  them,  notwithstand- 
ing their  mistaken  views  of  the  true  form  of  the 
Church,  provided  they  denounce  not  other  sys- 
tems of  church  government.  But  the  doctrine 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  episcopal  as  the 
only  valid  form  of  church  government,  and  of 
the  episcopal  succession  of  bishops  above  men- 
tioned, in  order  to  participation  in  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  all  this  we  must  regard  as  something  for- 
eign to  the  true  idea  of  the  Christian  Church.  It 
is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  spirit  of  Protestant- 
ism ;  and  is  the  origin,  not  of  the  true  Catholicism 


TESTIMONY  OP  GUMMING. 


127 


of  the  Apostles,  but  of  that  of  the  Romish 
Church.  When,  therefore.  Episcopalians  disown, 
as  essentially  deficient  in  their  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganization, other  Protestant  churches  which  evi- 
dently have  the  spirit  of  Christ,  it  only  remains 
for  us  to  protest,  in  the  strongest  terms,  against 
their  setting  up  such  a  standard  of  perfection  for 
the  Christian  Church.  Far  be  it  from  us  who 
began  with  Luther  in  the  spirit,  that  we  should 
now  desire  to  be  made  perfect  by  the  flesh." 
Gal.  iii.  3. 

DR.  JOHN  GUMMING. 

Dr.  Cumming,  in  his  "Lectures  on  Roman- 
ism "  (p.  163),  writes  :  "  Let  me  now  proceed  to 
show  you,  by  two  simple  statements,  what  is 
really  understood  by  apostolical  succession.  It 
is,  in  the  first  place,  supposed  that  each  bishop 
has  been  consecrated  by  his  contemporary  bish- 
ops, on  the  death  of  his  predecessor,  and  that  no 
one  link  in  the  long  line  of  successive  conse- 
crators  or  consecrations  is  wanting  between  Dr. 
Bird  Sumner,  the  present  excellent  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  St.  Peter,  St.  Timothy,  or  St. 
Paul. 

"  The  second  position  is,  that  ordination  per- 
formed by  successive  bishops  only,  is  valid,  and 
that  the  party  obtaining  this  ordination  thereby 
eceives  all  the  gifts  and  grace  of  the  Spirit,  by 
which  his  act  and  deed  give  vitality  and  virtue 
to  every  sacrament  and  ordinance  he  administers. 


128 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


These  are  the  two  great  positions  of  those  who 
advocate  what  is  called  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion. The  simplest  illustration  of  it  that  I  can 
give  you,  would  be  a  long  magnetic,  galvanic,  or 
electric  chain,  starting  at  the  foot  of  an  apostle, 
and  extending  downward  to  the  present  Primate 
of  all  England ;  to  the  first  link  of  which  was 
imparted  a  mysterious  and  subtle  element  or 
virtue,  which  has  been  transmitted  by  successive 
consecrations,  link  by  link,  parallel  with  the  plane 
of  the  earth,  until  it  has  reached  the  bishops  of 
the  present  day,  on  whose  heads,  as  in  reservoirs, 
it  is  condensed  and  ready  for  use  and  transmis- 
sion to  their  successors. 

"  Now,  you  will  see  at  once,  that  if  the  first 
link  in  a  long  chain  is  wanting,  the  whole  falls 
to  the  ground  ;  or  if  twenty  links  in  the  middle 
of  a  chain  are  wanting,  the  whole  falls  to  the 
ground  ;  or  if,  in  this  electric  chain  of  which  I 
have  been  speaking,  some  links  in  the  middle, 
instead  of  being  veritable  conductors  of  the  mys* 
terious  virtue,  are  incapable  of  transmitting  it, 
or  are  so  vitiated  that  the  current  must  fly  off  by 
a  centrifugal  force,  then,  again,  the  transmission 
is  arrested  and  dissipated,  and  all  post  et  propter 
hoc  is  vitiated.  In  all  these  respects  I  am  ready 
to  prove,  that  the  apostolical  succession  be- 
longs to  those  things  called  '  endless  genealogies, 
which  minister  questions,  rather  than  godly  edi- 
fying.' 


TESTIMONY  OP  GUMMING. 


129 


"  Now,  I  will  show  you,  that  in  the  fur  stretch- 
ing chain  of  succession  to  the  Apostles,  the  very 
first  link  after  the  Apostles  is  wanting. 

"  My  proof,  on  this  point,  is  drawn  from  the 
recorded  state  of  the  see  (using  the  word  in  the 
ancient  sense),  or  bishopric,  or  oversight,  or  by 
whatever  equally  suitable  name  it  may  be  called, 
of  Alexandria.  Eutychius,  of  Alexandria,  states 
that  St.  Mark,  the  Evangelist,  first  of  all  preached 
the  gospel  in  Alexandria." 

After  quoting  the  language  of  Eutychius,  Dr. 
Gumming  proceeds :  "  It  is  here  distinctly  de- 
clared, that  during  the  three  hundred  years  that 
preceded  the  Council  of  Nice — that  is,  up  to 
325  —  the  custom  in  Alexandria  was,  not  for 
other  bishops  to  consecrate  the  bishop  that  was 
to  be  the  head  of  the  diocese,  but  for  the  twelve 
presbyters  to  meet  together  and  choose  one  of 
themselves  as  chairman,  or  moderator,  or  patri- 
arch, and  their  choice  and  designation,  without 
any  consecration  by  a  bishop,  was  ipso  facto  et 
de  jure  the  appointment  of  that  bishop.  This  is 
utterly  opposed  to  recent  views,  and,  even  on 
moderate  Episcopal  principles,  it  is  irregular  at 
least. 

"  If  all  the  presbyters  of  London  were  to  meet 
together  at  the  death  of  the  Bishop  of  London, 
and  to  elect  one  of  themselves  as  bishop  and 
consecrate  him,  every  Tractarian  would  protest 
against  it  as  a  departure  from  the  vital  laws  of 

9 


180 


THE  PIIIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


the  Church,  and  an  utter  interruption  and  de- 
struction of  the  succession,  and  such  a  person 
would  be  pronounced  to  be  no  more  bishop  than 
I  should  be  held  to  be  their  diocesan  by  the  same 
party. 

"  But  if  it  be  the  fact,  that  the  presbyters  thus 
originally  constituted  their  bishops  in  so  great  a 
see,  and  if  it  be  a  fact,  also,  that  there  is  no 
transmission  of  the  apostolical  succession  where 
there  is  no  consecration  by  bishops,  then  I  ask, 
Can  any  one  of  the  present  bishops  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church  prove  that  his  succession  and  conse- 
cration may  not  be  derived  from  some  of  the 
elected  said  bishops,  who  were  merely  non- 
consecrated  presbyters  of  Alexandria,  and  so, 
after  all,  be  null  on  Tractarian  principles,  how- 
ever sound  and  admissible  on  ours?  Sure  we 
are  there  is  a  risk  of  some  non-conducting  link 
being  introduced  into  a  chain,  during  these  three 
hundred  years,  when  a  custom  prevailed  in  so 
important  and  influential  a  diocese,  so  opposite 
to  that  which  is  now  thought  essential." 

After  quoting  the  confirmatory  statements  of 
Severus  and  Jerome,  our  author  proceeds:  "  These 
collateral  witnesses  prove,  equally,  that  the  cus- 
tom existed  at  Alexandria  of  the  presbyters  conse- 
crating or  ordering  their  bishops.  And  if  this  be 
the  fact  (and  we  have  the  best  of  all  demonstra- 
tion of  it,  because  it  is  proved  by  the  very  wit- 
nesses to  whom  the  tractators  appeal),  then,  we 


tEStlMONY  OF  KILLEN. 


131 


repeat  it,  as  the  appointment  of  presbyters  was 
the  only  consecration  that  was  had  in  that  city 
during  three  centuries,  the  element  which,  upon 
Tractarian  principles,  is  essential  to  the  transmis- 
sion of  the  succession,  was  altogether  wanting, 
and  this  vicious  procedure  may  have  infected  all 
parts  of  the  Church." 

DR.   W.  D.  KILLEN. 

Professor  Killen,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Ireland,  in  his  interesting  work  on  the  "  An- 
cient Church  for  the  First  Three  Hundred  Years" 
(p.  580),  writes  :  "  It  is  clear,  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  in  the  apostolic  age  ordination  was 
performed  by  'the  laying  on  of  hands  of  the 
presbytery,'  and  this  mode  of  designation  to  the 
ministry  appears  to  have  continued  until  some 
time  in  the  third  century.  We  are  informed  by 
the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers,  in  a  passage 
to  which  the  attention  of  the  reader  has  been 
already  invited,  that  '  even  at  Alexandria,'  etc.  .  .  . 
(p.  533). 

"  As  Jerome  here  mentions  various  important 
facts  of  which  we  might  otherwise  have  re- 
mained ignorant,  and  as  this  statement  throws 
much  light  upon  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the 
early  Church,  it  is  entitled  to  special  notice. 

"  In  the  letter  where  this  passage  occurs,  the 
writer  is  extolling  the  dignity  of  presbyters,  and 
is  endeavoring  to  show  that  they  are  very  little 


132 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


inferior  to  bishops.  He  admits,  indeed,  that,  in 
his  own  days,  they  had  ceased  to  ordain  ;  but 
he  intimates  that  they  once  possessed  the  right, 
and  that  they  retained  it  in  all  its  integrity  until 
the  former  part  of  the  preceding  century.  Some 
have  thought  that  .Jerome  has  here  expressed  him- 
self indefinitely,  and  that  he  did  not  know  the 
exact  date  at  which  the  arrangement  he  describes 
ceased  at  Alexandria.  But  his  testimony,  when 
fairly  analyzed,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  want  pre- 
cision, for  he  obviously  speaks  of  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius  as  bishops  by  anticipation,  alleging  that 
a  custom,  which  anciently  existed  among  the 
elders  of  the  Egyptian  metropolis,  was  main- 
tained until  the  time  when  these  ecclesiastics, 
who  afterwards  successively  occupied  the  epis- 
copal chair,  sat  together  in  the  presbytery. 

"  The  period  thus  pointed  out  can  be  easily 
ascertained.  Demetrius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
after  a  long  official  life  of  forty-three  years,  died 
about  A.  D.  232,  and  it  is  well  known  that  Hera- 
clas and  Dionysius  were  both  members  of  his 
presbytery  towards  the  close  of  his  episcopal 
administration.  It  was,  therefore,  shortly  before 
his  demise  that  the  new  system  was  introduced. 
In  certain  parts  of  the  Church  the  arrangement 
mentioned  by  Jerome  probably  continued  some- 
what longer.  Cyprian  apparently  hinted  at  such 
cases  of  exception  when  he  says,  that  in  '  almost 
all  the  provinces,'  apud  nos  quoqne  et  fere  per 


tfiStlMONY  OF  KILLEN. 


18^ 


provincias  universas  tenetur  (Epist.  68),  the  neigh- 
boring bishops  assembled,  on  the  occasion  of  an 
episcopal  vacancy,  at  the  new  election  and  ordi- 
nation. It  may  have  been  that,  in  a  few  of  the 
more  considerable  towns,  the  elders  still  con- 
tinued to  nominate  their  president. 

"  When  the  erudite  Roman  presbyter  informs 
us  that  '  even  at  Alexandria,'  nam  et  Alexandrice, 
the  elders  formerly  made  their  own  bishop,  his 
language  obviously  implies  that  such  a  mode  of 
creating  the  chief  pastor  was  not  confined  to  the 
church  of  the  metropolis  of  Egypt.  It  existed 
wherever  Christianity  had  gained  a  footing,  and 
he  mentions  this  particular  see,  partly,  because 
of  its  importance,  being,  in  point  of  rank,  the 
second  in  the  empire,  and  partly,  perhaps,  because 
the  remarkable  circumstances  in  its  history,  lead- 
ing to  the  alteration  which  he  specifies,  were 
known  to  all  his  well-informed  contemporaries. 

"  Jerome  does  not  say  that  the  Alexandrian 
presbyters  inducted  their  bishop  by  imposition 
of  hands,  or  set  him  apart  to  the  office  by  any 
formal  qrdination. 

"  Eutychius,  the  celebrated  Patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, who  flourished  at  the  beginning  of  i\\v  tenth 
century,  makes  this  assertion.  According  to  this 
writer  there  were  originally  twelve  presbyters  con- 
nected with  the  Alexandrian  Church  ;  and  when 
the  patriarchate  became  vacant,  they  elected  one 
of  the  twelve  presbyters,  on  tvhose  head  the  re- 


184 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICO^T. 


maining-  eleven  laid  hands,  and  blessed  him  and 
created  him  patriarch.  (See  the  original  passage 
in  Selden's  works,  ii.  c.  421,  422  :  London,  1726.) 

This  passage  furnishes  a  remarkable  confirma- 
tion of  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  as  to  the  fact 
that  the  Alexandrian  presbyters  originally  made- 
their  bishops,  but  it  is  probably  not  very  accurate 
as  to  the  details.  As  to  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
it  is  not  supported  by  Jerome. 

"  His  words  apparently  indicated  that  they  did 
not  recognize  the  necessity  of  any  special  need  of 
investiture;  that  they  made  the  bishop  by  elec- 
tion ;  and  that,  when  once  acknowledged  as  the 
object  of  their  choice,  he  was  at  liberty  to  enter 
forthwith  on  the  performance  of  his  episcopal 
duties.  When  the  Roman  soldiers  made  an  em- 
peror, they  appointed  him  by  acclamation,  and 
the  cheers  which  issued  from  their  ranks  as  he 
stood  up  before  the  legions,  and  as  he  was  clothed 
with  purple  by  one  of  themselves,  constituted  the 
ceremony  of  his  inauguration.  The  ancient  arch- 
deacon was  still  one  of  the  deacons  (the  case  is 
different  with  the  modern  English  archdeacon 
who  is  a  presbyter) :  as  he  was  the  chief  almoner 
of  the  Church,  he  required  to  possess  tact,  dis- 
cernment, and  activity ;  and,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, he  was  nominated  to  the  office  by  his  fellow- 
deacons.  Jerome  assures  us,  that  until  the  time 
of  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  elders  made  a 
bishop  just  in  the  same  way  as  in  his  own  day 


TESTIMONY  OF  KILLEN. 


135 


the  soldiers  made  an  emperor,  or  as  the  deacons 
chose  one  whom  they  knew  to  be  industrious,  and 
made  him  an  archdeacon." 

After  quoting  from  the  letters  of  Pius,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  to  Justus  of  Vienne,  and  of  Irenaeus  to 
Victor  of  Rome,  in  support  of  Jerome's  state- 
ment, our  author  proceeds:  "  Some  imagine  that 
no  one  can  be  properly  qualified  to  administer  di- 
vine ordinances  who  has  not  received  episcopal 
ordination,  but  a  more  accurate  acquaintance  with 
the  history  of  the  early  Church  is  all  that  is  re- 
quired to  dissipate  the  delusion.  The  preceding 
statement  clearly  shows  that  for  upwards  of  a  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  our  Lord,  all 
the  Christian  ministers  throughout  the  world  were 
ordained  by  presbyters.  The  bishops  themselves 
were  of  '  the  order  of  the  presbytery,'  and  as  they 
had  never  received  episcopal  consecration,  they 
could  only  ordain  as  presbyters.  The  bishop  was, 
in  fact,  nothing  more  than  the  chief  presbyter. 
Thu?  the  author  of  the  '  Questions  on  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,'  says:  '•Quice  est  episcopvs 
nisi  primus  presbyter,^  c.  101." 

A  Father  of  the  third  century  accordingly  ob- 
.serves :  "All  power  and  grace  are  established  in 
the  church  where  elders  preside^  who  possess  the 
power  as  well  of  baptizing,  as  of  confirming  and 
ordaining."  ^'■Omnis  potestas  et  gratia  in  ecclesia 
constituta  sit,  ubi  preesident  majores  natu,  qui  et 


136 


tHE  PRIMITIVE  ElUENtCON. 


haptizendi  el  manum  imponendi  et  ordinandi^* 
(Firmilian,  Episf.  Cyprian,  "  Opera,"  p.  304). 

(Firmilian  was  Bishop  of  Cappadocia,  in  Asia 
Minor,  an  intimate  friend  of  Origen,  who  passed 
much  time  with  him,  and  who  shared  with  him 
his  freedom  from  ecclesiastieism  ;  Origen  having 
preached  the  gospel  as  a  layman  for  many  years> 
receiving  orders  at  a  late  period  in  life.) 

Dr.  Killen  continues :  "  An  old  ecclesiastical 
law,  recently  presented  for  the  first  time  to  the 
English  reader  (see  Bunsen's  '  Hippolytus,'  ii. 
351-7),  throws  much  light  on  a  portion  of  the 
history  of  the  church  long  buried  in  great  obscu- 
rity. This  law  may  well  remind  us  of  those  re- 
mains of  extinct  classes  of  animals  which  the 
naturalist  studies  with  so  much  interest,  as  it  ob- 
viously belongs  to  an  era  e\  en  anterior  to  that  of 
the  so-called  apostolical  canons  (probably  framed 
only  a  few  years  before  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  and  called  apostolical,  perhaps,  because 
concocted  by  some  of  the  bishops  of  the  so-called 
apostolic  churches). 

"  Though  it  is  a  part  of  a  series  of  regulations 
once  current  in  the  Church  of  Ethiopia,  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  framed  in  Italy, 
and  that  its  authority  was  acknowledged  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  the  time  of  Hippolytus.  The 
canons  edited  by  Hippolytus  were,  no  doubt,  at 
one  time  acknowledged  by  the  Western  Church. 
It  marks  a  transition  period  in  the  history  of  ec- 


TESTIMONY  OF  KFLLKN. 


18T 


clesiastical  polity,  and  whilst  it  indirectly  confirms 
the  testimony  of  Jerome,  relative  to  the  custom 
of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  it  shows  that  the 
state  of  things  to  which  the  learned  presbyter 
refers,  was  now  superseded  by  another  arrange- 
ment. 

"  This  curious  specimen  of  ancient  legislation 
treats  of  the  appointment  and  ordination  of  min- 
isters.   '  The  bishop,'  says  this  enactment,  'is  to 

be  elected  by  all  the  people  And  they 

shall  choose  one  of  the  bishops  and  one  of  the 

PRESBYTERS,  ....  AND  THESE-  SHALL  LAY 
THEIR   HANDS    UPON    HIS    HEAD   AND   PRAY  '  (BuH- 

sen's  '  Hippolytus,'  iii.  43). 

"  Here,  to  avoid  the  confusion  of  a  whole  crowd 
of  individuals  imposing  hands  on  ordination,  two 
were  selected  to  act  on  behalf  of  the  assembled 
office-bearers ;  and,  that  the  parties  entitled  to 
officiate  might  be  fairly  represented,  the  deputies 
were  to  be  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter. 

"  Eutychius  intimates  that  the  Alexandrian 
presbyters  continued  to  ordain  their  own  bishops 
till  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  It  is  not 
improbable  that,  until  then,  some  of  them  may 
have  continued  to  take  part  in  the  ordination,  and 
his  statements  may  be  so  far  correct. 

"  The  canon  (of  Hippolytus)  illustrates  the  jeal- 
ousy with  which  the  presbyters,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  third  century,  still  guarded  some  of  their 
rights  and  privileges.    In  the  matter  of  investing 


138 


THE  PRIillTITE  EIRENICOK. 


others  with  church  authority,  they  yet  maintained 
their  original  position,  and  though  many  bishops 
might  be  present  when  another  was  inducted  into 
office,  they  would  permit  only  one  of  the  number 
to  unite  with  themselves  in  the  ceremony  of  ordi- 
nation. Some  at  the  present  day  do  not  hej^itate 
to  assert  that  presbyters  have  no  right  whatever  to 
ordain;  but  this  canon  supplies  evidence,  that  in 
the  third  century  they  were  employed  to  ordain 
bishops." 

KEV.  JOHX  BROWX,  D.  D. 

Dr.  Brown,  of  Scotland,  in  his  "  Letters  to  Dr. 
Pusey"  (p.  224), -unites :  "  But  passing  from  your 
Church,  I  would  further  remark,  that  the  succes- 
sion must  have  been  injured  in  all  those  instances 
in  which  bishops  and  presbyters  were  not  only 
baptized,  but  were  ordained  by  presbyters,  and 
were  not  reordained.  Now  that  this  was  the 
case  from  the  earliest  ages  is  beyond  a  doubt.  It 
was  the  case  in  the  important  see  of  Alexandria, 
when,  as  Usher  stated  to  Charles  I.,  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Jerome  and  Eutychius,  the  presbyters 
for  a  long  time  made  not  only  presbyters  but 
bishops.  '  For  even  from  Mark  the  Evangelist,' 
says  the  first  of  these  authors,  etc. 

"  Upon  which  Willet,  as  was  noticed  formerly, 
remarks :  '  So  it  would  seem  that  the  very  elec- 
tion of  a  bishop  in  those  days,  without  any  other 
circumstances,  was  his  ordination.'     And  says 


TESTIMONY  OP  BROWN. 


139 


Still ingfleet,  who  answers  at  considerable  length 
the  numerous  objections  urged  by  Bishop  Pear- 
son, to  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  :  '  It 
appears  that  by  election,  he  means  conferring 
atithoriti/,  by  the  instances  he  brings  to  that  pur- 
pose ;  as  the  Roman  armies  choosing  their  em- 
peror, who  had  no  other  power  but  what  they 
received  by  the  length  of  the  sword,  and  the  dea- 
cons choosing  their  archdeacon,  who  had  no  other 
power  but  what  was  merely  conferred  by  the 
choice  of  the  college  of  deacons'  ('  Irenicum,'  p. 
274). 

"And  says  Eutychius,  who  is  represented  by 
Ebn  Abi  Osbae,  as  a  '  man  well  acquainted  with 
the  sciences  and  institutions  which  were  in  use 
among  the  Christians,'  and  whose  testimony  co- 
incides with  that  of  Jerome,  '  Hananias  was  the 
first  of  the  patriarchs  who  was  set  over  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,'  etc. 

"  And  as  it  was  obvious  that  he  could  have  no 
inducements  to  make  this  statement,  but  a  regard 
to  truth,  because,  as  he  himself  was  a  patriarch,  ^ 
it  was  fitted  to  lessen  the  respectability  of  the 
ruler,  inasmuch  as  it  showed  a  deviation  from  the 
mode  of  creating  the  patriarchs,  which  had  been 
recommended  by  the  Evangelist ;  and  as  it  is 
confirmed  by  Jerome,  who  was  born  only  about 
eighty  years  after  the  change  took  place,  and  who 
had  the  best  opportunities  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  fact,  as  he  lived  much  in  the  East,  it  is 


140 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


perfectly  capricious  on  the  part  of  Episcopalians 
to  question  their  testimony. 

"  Usher,  who  was  one  of  the  most  able  and 
learned  of  their  bishops,  examined  the  evidence  of 
former  times  with  the  utmost  care,  and  declared 
himself  to  be  satisfied,  and  there  appears  to  be  no 
good  reason  why  it  ought  not  to  satisfy  them 
now.  If  they  have  perfect  confidence  in  the  lists 
of  bishops  of  so\r\e  of  the  churches  given  by 
Eusebius,  though  he  lived  nearly  three  hundred 
years  after  the  time  when  they  commenced,  noth- 
ing but  a  conviction  that  it  bears  so  strongly 
against  diocesan  Episcopacy  and  the  apostolical 
succession,  could  prompt  them  to  doubt  the  state- 
ments of  Jerome,  who  lived  so  much  nearer  to  the 
event  which  he  reports,  corroborated  as  it  is  by 
another  individual  who  himself  presided  over  the 
see  of  Alexandria,  and  might  have  access  to  its 
records,  and  who  will  be  acknowledged  at  least  to 
be  an  impartial  witness. 

"  But  if  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  as  Usher 
affirmed,  for  txoo  hundred,  and  fifty  years,  were 
made  by  presbyters,  either  by  election  without  or- 
dination, or  by  their  laying  their  hands  on  their 
heads,  and  setting  them  apart  to  their  office,  I 
would  like  to  be  informed  whether  the  succession 
must  not  have  been  broken  even  at  the  very  be- 
ginning, during  that  long  period. 

"  And  as  Alexandria  was  one  of  the  largest 
and    most   populous    bishoprics    in   the  early 


TESTIMONY  Of  BROWN. 


141 


Church,  I  shall  leave  it  to  any  candid  individual 
to  say  w^hether  he  can  estimate  the  amount  of 
the  disorder  and  confusion  which  may  have  been 
introduced  into  other  sections  of  the  Christian 
Church,  by  clergymen  coming  into  them,  whose 
orders,  upon  your  principles,  must  have  been  ir- 
regular and  invalid." 

On  page  361,  he  adds  :  "  I  have  only  further  to 
remark,  on  the  statements  of  Jerome,  that  in  the 
only  instance  which  he  mentions  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  bishops,  after  they  were  first  introduced, 
that  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  he  represents 
them  as  made  by  presbyters,  just  as  the  Roman 
army  made  their  emperor,  and  the  deacons  made 
their  archdeacon.  He  does  not  say  whether  they 
ordained  them,  though  this  is  asserted  afterwards 
by  Eutychius.  And  it  is  evident  that  if  they 
were  ordained,  they  alone  must  have  performed 
it ;  for  before  diocesan  bishops  were  adopted  by 
the  Church,  who  did  not  receive  their  office  by 
any  divine  appointment,  but  by  mere  human  ar- 
rangement, there  could  be  none  but  presbyters  to 
consecrate  those  who  were  raised  to  the  episco- 
pate, not  only  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  but  in 
all  the  churches. 

"  But  if,  according  to  Jerome,  it  was  presbyters 
alone  who  began  the  succession,  and  ordained 
the  first  diocesan  bishop  in  all  the  churches,  from 
whom  the  whole  of  the  bishops  of  the  present 
day,  and  the  whole  of  their  clergy  have  derived 


142 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON 


their  order,  the  succession  has  been  vitiated  af 
the  very  commencement,  and  cannot  be  rectified  ; 
and  if  presbyterian  orders  have  no  validity,  there 
cannot,  on  your  principles,  be  a  church,  or  a  min- 
ister, or  a  single  individual  who  has  any  revealed 
or  covenanted  title  to  salvation  on  the  face  of  the 
earth." 

DR.  GEORGE  CAMPBELL. 

Professor  Campbell,  of  Marischal  College,  Ab- 
erdeen, in  his  "  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory "  (p.  130),  thus  writes  :  "  Another  witness 
whom  I  shall  adduce  is  Jerome,  who  wrote  about 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth.  The  testimony  which  I  shall  bring 
from  him  regards  the  practice  that  had  long 
subsisted  at  Alexandria.  I  shall  give  you  the 
passage  in  his  own  words,  from  the  Epistle  to 
Evagrius,  '  Alexandriae  a  Marco,'  etc. 

"  I  know  it  has  been  said  that  this  relates  only 
to  the  election  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and 
not  to  his  ordination.  To  me,  it  is  manifest  that 
it  relates  to  both  ;  or,  to  express  myself  with 
greater  precision,  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
father  to  signify,  that  no  other  ordination  than 
this  election,  and  those  ceremonies  with  which  the 
presbyters  might  please  to  accompany  it,  such  as 
the  installment  and  salutation,  was  then  and  there 
thought  necessary  to  one  who  had  been  ordained 
a  presbyter  before ;  that,  according  to  the  usage 
of  that  Church,  this  form  was  all  that  was  requi- 


TESTIMONY  OF  CAMPBELL. 


143 


Bite  to  constitute  one  of  the  presbyters  their  bishop. 
But,  as  I  am  sensible  that  unsupported  assertions 
are  entitled  to  no  regard  on  either  side,  I  shall  as- 
sign my  reasons  from  the  author's  own  words, 
and  then  leave  every  one  to  judge  for  himself. 

"  Jerome,  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  letter, 
had  been  maintaining,  in  opposition  to  some  dea- 
con who  had  foolishly  boasted  of  the  order  of 
deacons  as  being  superior  to  the  order  of  presby- 
ters :  Jerome,  I  say,  had  been  maintaining,  that 
in  the  original  and  apostolical  constitution  of  the 
Church,  bishop  and  presbyter  were  two  names  for 
the  same  office.  That  ye  may  be  satisfied  that 
what  he  says  implies  no  less,  I  shall  give  it  you  in 
his  own  words :  'Audio  qiiendam  in  tanlam  eru- 
pisse  vecordiam,  ut  diaconas  presbyteris,  id  est  epis- 
copis,  anteferrel.  Ncm,  cum  apostolus  perspiciie 
doceat  eosdevi  esse  presbyteros  quos  episcopos,  quid 
patitur  mensarum  et  viduarum  minister,  ut  supra 
eos,  se  tumidus  efferat! 

"  For  this  purpose  he  had,  in  a  cursory  manner, 
pointed  out  some  of  those  arguments  from  the 
New  Testament,  which  I  took  occasion,  in  a  for- 
mer discourse,  to  illustrate.  In  regard  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  episcopal  order,  as  then  com- 
monly understood,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of 
presbyter,  he  signifies  that  it  did  not  exist  from 
the  beginning,  but  was  merely  an  expedient  de- 
vised after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  in  order  the 
more  effectually  to  preserve  unity  in  every  church ; 


144 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


as,  in  case  of  difference  among  the  pastors,  it 
would  be  of  importance  to  have  one  acknowl- 
edged superior  in  whose  determination  they  were 
bound  to  acquiesce.  His  words  are,  '  Quod  ante 
postea  ; '  he  had  been  speaking  immediately  before 
of  the  times  of  the  Apostles :  '  vnvs  eleclus  est-, 
qui  caeteris  preponeretur,  in  schismatis  remedium 
/actus  est,  ne  tinus  quisque  ad  se  trahens,  Cliristi 
ecclesiam  rumperetJ  Then  follows  the  passage, 
quoted  above,  concerning  the  Church  of  Alexan- 
dria. 

"  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  he  is  giving 
an  account  of  the  first  introduction  of  the  episco- 
pate (as  the  word  was  then  understood),  which  he 
had  been  maintaining  was  not  a  different  order 
from  that  of  presbyter,  but  merely  a  certain  pre- 
eminence conferred  by  election,  for  the  expedient 
purpose  of  preventing  schism.  And  in  confirma- 
tion of  what  he  had  advanced,  that  this  election 
was  all  that  at  first  was  requisite,  he  tells  the  story 
of  the  manner  that  had  long  been  practiced,  and 
held  sufficient  for  constituting  a  bishop  in  the 
metropolis  of  Egypt.  It  is  accordingly  intro- 
duced thus :  '  Nam  et  Alexandrice,^  as  a  case  en- 
tirely opposite,  to  wit,  an  instance  of  a  church 
in  which  a  simple  election  had  continued  to  be 
accounted  sufficient  for  a  longer  time  than  in  other 
churches ;  an  instance  which  had  remained  a  ves- 
tige and  an  evidence  of  the  once  universal  practice. 

"  Now,  if  he  meant  only  to  tell  us,  as  some 


TESTIMONY  OF  CAMPBELL. 


145 


would  have  it,  that  there  the  election  of  the  bishop 
was  in  the  presbyters,  there  was  no  occasion  to  refer 
to  Alexandria  for  an  example,  or  to  a  former  pe- 
riod, as  that  continued  to  be  a  very  common,  if  not 
the  general,  practice  throughout  the  Church.  And 
though  it  be  allowed  to  have  been  still  the  custom 
in  most  places  to  get  also  the  concurrence  or  con- 
sent of  the  people,  this  shows  more  strongly  how 
frivolous  the  arguments  from  their  being  electors 
would  have  been  in  favor  of  presbyters  as  equal 
in  point  of  order  to  bishops,  and  consequently  su- 
perior to  deacons ;  since,  in  regard  to  most  places, 
as  much  as  this  could  be  said  concerning  those 
who  are  inferior  to  deacons,  the  very  meanest  of 
the  people,  who  had  all  a  suffrage  in  the  election 
of  their  bishop. 

"  But,  understood  in  the  way  I  have  explained 
it,  the  argument  has  both  sense  and  strength  in  it, 
and  is,  in  effect,  as  follows :  '  There  can  be  no 
essential  difference  between  the  order  of  bishop 
and  that  of  presbyter,  since,  to  make  a  bishop, 
nothing  more  was  necessary  at  first  (and  of  this 
practice  the  Church  of  Alexandria  long  remained 
an  example)  than  the  nomination  of  his  fellow- 
presbyters;  and  no  ceremony  of  consecration  was 
required  but  what  was  performed  by  them,  and 
consisted  chiefly  in  placing  him  in  a  higher  seat 
and  saluting  him  bishop.' 

"  Was  ever  anything  more  frivolous  than  Pear- 
son's criticism  on  the  distinction  between  a  se  and 
10 


146 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


ex  se  7  the  phrase  used  in  the  above  quotation 
(*  Vindiciae  Ignatianae,'  p.  1.  c.  x.).  Or  could  any- 
thing be  conceived  more  foreign  to  Jerome's  pur- 
pose than  the  above  passage  has  thought  fit  to 
interpret  it  ? 

"  Add  to  this,  that  the  very  examples  this  father 
makes  use  of  for  illustration,  show  manifestly 
that  his  meaning  must  have  been  as  I  have  repre- 
sented it.  His  first  instance  is  the  election  of  an 
emperor  by  the  army,  which  he  calls  expressly 
making  an  emperor.  And  is  it  not  a  matter  of 
public  notoriety,  that  the  emperors  raised  in  this 
manner  did,  from  that  moment,  without  waiting 
any  other  inauguration,  assume  the  imperial  titles 
and  exercise  the  imperial  power?  And  did  they 
not  treat  all  as  rebels  who  opposed  them  ? 

"  If  possible,  the  other  example  is  still  more 
decisive.  To  constitute  an  archdeacon,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  was  then  used,  no  other 
form  of  investiture  was  necessary  but  his  election, 
which  was  in  Jerome's  time  solely  in  the  fellow- 
deacons  ;  though  this  also,  with  many  other  things, 
came  afterwards  into  the  hands  of  the  bishop. 
By  this  example,  he  also  very  plainly  acquaints 
us  that  the  bishop  originally  stood  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  the  presbyters,  in  which  the  archdeacon 
in  his  own  time,  did  to  the  other  deacons,  and 
was,  by  consequence,  no  other  than  what  the 
arch-presbyter  came  to  be  among  the  presbyters. 

"  But  does  not  Jerome,  after  all,  admit,  in  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  CAMPBELL. 


147 


very  next  sentence,  the  superiority  of  bishops  in 
the  exclusive  privilege  of  ordaining?.  True;  he 
admits  it  as  a  distinction  that  th^n  actually  ob- 
tained ;  but  the  whole  preceding  part  of  the  let- 
ter was  written  to  evince  that  frona  the  beginning 
it  was  not  so. 

"  From  ancient  times  he  descends  to  times  then 
modern,  and  from  distant  countries  he  comes  to 
his  own,  concluding  that  still  there  was  not  one 
article  of  moment  whereby  their  powers  were  dis- 
criminated :  Quid  enim  facit^  excepta  ordinalione, 
episcopus^  quod  pre  sbyternon  facial  ?^  This,  in- 
deed, proves  suHiciently,  that  at  that  time  presby- 
ters were  not  allowed  to  ordain.  But  it  can  prove 
nothing  more;  for  in  regard  to  his  sentiment 
about  the  rise  of  this  difference,  it  was  impossible 
to  be  more  explicit  than  he  had  been  through  the 
whole  epistle.  I  shall  only  add,  that,  for  my  part, 
I  cannot  conceive  another  interpretation  that  can 
give  either  weight  to  his  argument  or  consistency 
to  his  words.  Tlie  interpretation  I  have  given 
does  both,  and  that  without  any  violence  to  the 
expression. 

"  I  might  plead  Jerome's  opinion  in  the  case. 
I  do  plead  only  his  testimony.  I  say  I  might 
plead  his  opinion  as  the  opinion  of  one  who  lived 
in  an  age  when  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of 
any  ecclesiastical  order  or  custom  must  have  been 
incomparably  easier  than  it  can  be  to  us  at  this 
distance  of  time.    I  might  plead  his  opinion  a^ 


148 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


the  opinion  of  a  man  who  had  more  erudition 
than  any  person  then  in  the  Church,  the  greatest 
linguist,  the  greatest  critic,  the  greatest  antiquary 
of  them  all.  But  I  am  no  friend  to  an  implicit 
deference  to  human  authority  in  matters  of  opin- 
ion. 

"  Let  his  sentiment  be  no  further  regarded  than 
the  reasons  by  which  they  are  supported  are  found 
to  be  good.  I  do  plead  only  his  testimony  as  a 
testimony  in  relation  to  a  matter  of  fact,  both  re- 
cent and  notoriovis,  since  it  regarded  the  then  late 
uniform  practice  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  a 
city  which,  before  Constantinople  became  the  seat 
of  empire,  was,  next  to  Rome,  the  most  eminent 
in  the  Christian  world. 

"To  the  same  purpose  the  testimony  ol  the  Al- 
exandrian patriarch  Eutychius  has  been  pleaded, 
who,  in  his  *  Annals '  of  that  Church,  takes  notice 
of  this  same  practice,  but  with  greater  particularity 
of  circumstances  than  had  been  done  by  Jerome, 
Eutychius  tells  us  that  the  number  of  presbyters 
therein  was  always  twelve ;  and  that,  on  an  occa- 
sion of  vacancy  in  the  episcopal  chair,  they  chose 
one  of  themselves,  whom  the  remaining  eleven 
ordained  bishop  by  imposition  of  hands  and  ben- 
ediction. In  these  points,  it  is  evident  there  is 
nothing  that  can  be  said  to  contradict  the  testi- 
mony of  Jerome ;  all  that  can  be  affirmed  is,  that 
the  one  mentions  particulars  about  which  the 
other  had  been  silent. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CAMPBELL.  149 


"  But  it  will  be  said  there  is  one  circumstance 
—  the  duration  assigned  To  this  custom  — where- 
in there  seems  to  be  a  real  contradiction.  Jerome 
brings  it  no  farther  down  than  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius  ;  whereas  Eutychius  -represents  it  as- 
continuing  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  about  fifty 
years  later.  Now,  it  is  not  impossible  that  a  cir- 
cumstantial custom  might  have  been  in  i)art  abol- 
ished at  one  time,  and  in  part  at  an'other.  But 
admit  that  in  this  point  the  two  testimonies  are 
contradictory,  that  will  by  no  means  invalidate 
their  credibility  as  to  those  points  on  which  they 
are  agreed.  The  difference,  on  the  contrary,  as  it 
is  an  evidence  that  the  last  did  not  copy  from  the 
first,  and  that  they  are  therefore  two  witnesses  and 
not  one,  seems  rather  as  a  confirmation  of  the 
truth  of  those  articles  wherein  they  concur.  And 
this  is  our  ordinary  method  of  judging  in  all  mat- 
ters depending  on  human  testimony.  That  Je- 
rome, who  probably  spoke  from  memory,  though 
certain  as  to  the  main  points,  might  be  somewhat 
doubtful  as  to  the  precise  time  of  the  abolition  of 
the  custom,  is  rendered  even  probable  by  his  men- 
tioning, with  a  view  to  mark  the  expiration  of  the 
practice,  two  successive  bishops  rather  than  one. 
For  if  he  had  known  certainly  that  it  ended  with 
Heraclas,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  to 
mention  Dionysius ;  and  if  he  had  been  assured 
of  its  continuance  to  the  time  of  Dionysius,  there 
would  have  been  no  propriety  in  mentioning  Her- 
aclas." 


150  Tllk  I'klMITlVE  EIRENICON. 


(richakd  BAXTER  (died  1691). 

This  eminently  learned  controversial  writer  in 
his  "Jesuit  Juggling"  (Am.  ed.,  1835,  p.  205, 
chap.  xxiv. :  on  "  Evangelical  Lawful  Ministry,)" 
•  in  reply  to  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Church, 
"  that  they  only  have  a  true  ministry  or  priest- 
hood and  an  apostolical  episcopacy  and  true 
ordination,  and  that  we  and  all  other  Protes- 
tant churches  have  no  true  ministers,  but  are 
mere  laymen  under  the  name  of  ministers,  be- 
cause we  have  no  just  ordination,"  thus  argues: 
"  What  succession  of  episcopal  consecration  was 
there  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  when  Jerome 
(Epist.  ad  Evagi-ium)  tells  us,  '  At  Alexandria, 
from  Mark,'  etc.  —  .... 

"  Thus  Jerome  shows  that  bishops  were  then 
made  by  presbyters.  In  the  same  epistle  he 
proves  from  Scripture  that  presbyters  and  bish- 
ops were  one. 

"  Medina,  accusing  Jerome  of  error,  saith  that 
Ambrose,  Austin,  Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Theodoret,  CEcumenius,  and  Theophylact 
were  in  the  same  heresy  as  Bellarmin  himself 
reporteth  him.  So  that  presbyters  now  may  make 
bishops  as  those  of  Alexandria  did.  Jerome 
there  saith :  '  All  are  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles.' Yet  apostles  as  apostles  have  no  succes- 
sors, as  Bellarmin  teacheth  (lib.  4, '  de  Pontif.'  cap. 
25)  

"  5.  He  that  is  ordained  according  to  the  Apos- 


TESTIMONY  OF  BAXTER. 


161 


ties'  directions  or  prescripts  of  Scripture,  hath  the 
true  apostolical  ordination ;  but  so  are  we  or- 
dained. The  Apostles  never  confiued  ordina- 
tion to  those  prelates  that  depend  on  the  Pope 
of  Rome.  The  bishops  to  whom  the  Apostles 
committed  that  power,  are  the  same  who  are 
called  presbyters  by  them,  and  they  were  the 
overseers  or  pastors,  each  but  of  one  single  church, 
and  not  of  many  churches,  in  Scripture  times, 
so  Hammond  asserts.  Such  are  those  ordained 
among  us  now. 

"  Gregory  Nazianzen, '  Orat.'  18,  saith  :  '  I  would 
there  was  no  presidency  nor  prerogative  of  place 
and  tyrannical  privileges,  that  so  we  might  be 
known  only  by  virtue.  But  now  this  right  side 
and  left  side,  and  middle  and  lower  degree,  and 
presidency  and  concomitancy,  have  beoot  us 
many  constitutions  to  no  purpose,  and  have 
driven  many  into  the  ditch,  and  have  led  them 
away  to  the  region  of  the  goats.' 
•  "  Isidore  Peiusiat,  lib.  3,  '  Epist.  223,  ad  Hier- 
acem,'  saith:  'When  I  have  showed  what  dif- 
ference there  is  between  the  ancient  ministry  and 
the  present  tyranny,  why  do  you  not  crown  and 
praise  the  lovers  of  equality  ?  ' 

"Refer  to  Sedulius,  Anselm,  Beda,  Alcuin, 
Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  and  Wickliffe's  argument  on 
the  Waldenses. 

"  Cassander  ('  Consult.'  article  14)  saith  :  '  It  is 
agreed  among  all,  that  of  old,  in  the  Apostles' 


152 


THE  PRIMITrVE  EIRENICON. 


days,  there  was  no  difference  between  bishops 
and  presbyters,  but  afterwards,  for  order's  sake 
and  the  avoiding  of  schism,  the  bishop  was  set 
before  the  presbyter.'  Occam  determineth,  that  by 
Christ's  institution  all  the  priests  of  what  degree 
soever  are  of  equal  authority,  power,  and  juris- 
diction. Reynold  Peacock  wrote  a  book  '  De  Min- 
istrorum  ^qualitate,'  which  your  party  caused  to 
be  printed." 

"  Richard  Armachan  (liber  9,  cap.  5,  '  ad  Qusest. 
Armen.')  saith :  '  There  is  not  found  in  the  evan- 
gelical or  apostolical  Scriptures,  any  difference 
between  bishops  and  simple  priests  called  pres- 
byters ;  whence  it  follows,  that  there  is  one 
power  in  all,  and  equal  from  their  order.  Cap.  7, 
answering  the  question  whether  any  priest  may 
consecrate  churches,  etc.,  he  saith,  '  Priests  may 
do  it  as  well  as  bishops,  seeing  a  bishop  hath  no 
more  in  such  matters  than  any  simple  priest.  It 
seems,  therefore,  that  the  restriction  of  the  priest'^ 
power  was  not  in  the  primitive  church  according 
to  Scripture.' 

"  6.  The  chief  error  of  the  Papists  in  this  cause 
is  expressed  in  their  reason,  '  no  man  can  give 
the  power  which  he  hath  not ; '  wherein  they  in- 
timate that  it  is  man  that  giveth  the  ministerial 
power ;  whereas  it  is  the  gift  of  Christ  alone.  Man 
doth  but  design  the  person  that  shall  receive  it,  and 
then  Christ  giveth  it,  by  this  law,  to  the  person  so 
designed ;  and  then  man  doth  invest  him,  and  sol- 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOOKER. 


153 


emnize  his  introduction.  Asa  woman  may  choose 
her  husband,  but  it  is  not  she  that  giveth  him 
the  power  over  her,  but  God  who  determineth  of 
that  power  by  his  law,  affixing  it  to  the  person 
chosen  by  her,  and  her  action  is  but  a  condition 
or  cause  of  that  capacity  of  the  matter  to  receive 
the  form.  Men  do  but  obey  God,  in  a  right 
choice  and  designation  of  the  person ;  his  law 
doth  presently  give  him  the  power,  with  which 
for  order's  sake  he  must  be  in  solemn  manner 
invested.  But  matters  of  order  may  possibly 
vary  ;  and  though  they  are  to  be  observed  as  far 
as  may  be,  yet  they  always  give  place  to  the  end 
and  substance  of  the  work  for  ordei'ino-  whereof 
they  are  appointed." 

In  this  latter  statement  Baxter  has  shown  the 
fallacy  of  our  exclusive  Episcopal  writers.  These 
have  inverted  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  giving  prom- 
inence to  the  human  investiture  of  office,  and  de- 
preciating the  Spirit's  work  in>he  selection  of  the 
bishop,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  his  electors. 
Like  other  human  perversions,  the  Church  has 
sadly  suffered,  and  the  cause  of  Christ's  kingdom 
been  greatly  hindered. 

RICHARD  HOOKER  (died  1600). 

This  justly  celebrated  divine  refers  to  the  state- 
ments of  Jerome  with  regard  to  the  Church  of 
Alexandria.  He  does  not  object  to  his  testimony 
as  to  the  presbyters  making  the  bishop  by  election. 


154 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


He  simply  argues  this  point:  "  We  cannot  with 
any  truth  so  interpret  his  words  as  to  mean,  that 
ill  the  Church  of  Alexandria  there  had  been 
bishops  endowed  with  superiority  over  presbyters 
from  St.  Mark's  time  only  till  the  time  of  Hera- 
clas  and  Dionysius." 

He  attempts  to  reply  to  the  assertion  of  Jerome, 
that  the  authority  of  bishops  over  presbyters  arose 
from  custom,  and  not  from  divine  arrangement. 

He  is  not  pleased  with  his  own  argument.  He 
remarks :  "  This  answer  to  Jerome  seemeth  dan- 
gerous. I  have  qualified  it,  as  I  may,  by  addition 
of  some  words  of  restraint ;  yet  I  satisfy  not 
myself;  in  my  judgment  it  should  be  altered." 

These  words  of  Hooker  appear  to  have  been 
placed  by  him  in  the  margin,  and  afterwards  in- 
serted in  the  text  by  his  editor,  Dr.  Gauden. 

In  the  same  fifth  chapter  of  Book  Seventh, 
after  a  consideration  of  Jerome's  language,  he 
concludes  :  "  Wherefore,  lest  bishops  forget 
themselves,  as  if  none  on  earth  had  authority  to 
touch  their  estates,  let  them  bear  continually  in 
mind,  that  it  is  rather  the  force  of  custom  whereby 
the  Church  having  so  long  found  it  good  to  con- 
tinue under  the  regiment  of  her  virtuous  bishops, 
doth  still  uphold,  maintain,  and  honor  them  in 
that  respect,  than  that  any  such  true  and  heavenly 
law  can  be  showed,  by  the  evidence  whereof  it 
may  of  truth  appear  that  the  Lord  Himself  hath 
appointed  presbyters  forever  to  be  under  the  regi- 


TESTrMOlJY  OF  HOOKER. 


155 


ment  of  bishops,  in  what  sort  soever  they  behave 
themselves.  Let  this  consideration  be  a  bridle 
unto  them,  and  let  it  teach  them  not  to  disdain 
the  advice  of  their  presbyters,  but  to  use  their 
authority  with  so  much  the  greater  humility  and 
moderation,  as  a  sword  which  the  Chnrch  hath 
power  to  take  from  them." 

After  discussing  the  arguments  for  and  against 
episcopal  government,  in  his  fourteenth  chapter 
he  writes :  "  Now,  whereas,  hereupon  some  do 
infer  that  no  ordination  can  stand  but  only  such  as 
is  made  by  bishops,  which  have  had  their  ordina- 
tion by  others  before  them  till  we  come  to  the 

very  Apostles  of  Christ  themselves   To 

this  we  answer  there  may  be  sometimes  very  just 
and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordination  made 
without  a  bishop." 

Here  Hooker  concedes  the  main  point,  and 
justifies  the  action  of  his  Church,  through  his 
whole  life.  If  in  the  heat  of  argument  with  the 
Puritans  he  has  used  stronger  language  with 
respect  to  the  authority  of  Episcopacy,  it  is  an 
inconsistency  necessarily  connected  with  his  posi- 
tion, and  a  difficulty  which  all  encounter  who 
are  led  to  assert  a  jure  dioino  claim  for  the  supe- 
riority of  bishops  over  presbyters,  or  to  assert  the 
necessity  of  an  episcopal  consecration  to  confer 
the  right  to  ordain.  If  the  great  Hooker  stumbled, 
who  now  can  succeed  in  the  attempt?  Yet 
Hooker's  claims  are  moderate,  in  contrast  with 
modern  pretensions. 


156 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


BISHOP  HOADLEY  (died  1761). 

Bishop  Hoadley,  in  his  "  Brief  Defense  of  Epis- 
copal Ordination,"  argues  for  such  ordination,  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  the  "  will  of  the  Apostles  " 
and  "the  settled  method  of  the  Church.''  He  ad- 
vocates it  on  the  gi'ound  of  "  order,  decency,  and 
regularity,"  —  not  of  "  indispensable  necessity." 
The  ability  and  moderation  of  his  work  justly 
entitle  him  to  the  encomium  passed  by  Bishop 
White  in  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
Considered"  (p.  17).  "The  name  of  Bishop 
Hoadley  will  probably  be  as  long  remembered  as 
any  on  the  list  of  British  worthies;  and  will 
never  be  mentioned  without  veneration  of  the 
strength  of  his  abilities,  the  liberality  of  his  senti- 
ments, and  his  enlightened  zeal  for  civil  liberty. 
He  has  written  in  defense  of  episcopal  govern- 
ment with  more  argument  and  better  temper 
than  is  commonly  to  be  met  with  in  controversial 
writings.  This  amiable  prelate  expresses  him- 
self as  follows,"  etc. 

From  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  as 
stated  by  Jerome,  Bishop  Hoadley  derives  a  strong 
argument  for  episcopal  ordination. 

His  argument  is  as  follows  (p.  418) :  "  First  he 
saith,that  in  some  parts  of  the  Christian  Church  it 
is  not  very  difficult  to  fix  the  time  of  this  restraint 
apon  presbyters.  The  only  instance  he  produceth 
is  that  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  in  which  he 
saith,  St.  Jerome  tells  us  that  for  above  two  hun- 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOADLEY.  157 


dred  years  the  presbyters  cl^ose  and  set  apart 
their  bishops.  From  whence  he  argues  tBat  if 
presbyters  in  this  Church  of  Alexandria  invested 
and  conferred  power  and  authority  on  their  bish- 
ops, and  the  validity  of  this  act  of  theirs  remained 
unquestionable,  much  more  might  they  confer 
order  on  presbyters. 

"  And,  lest  there  should  not  appear  reason 
enough  in  the  argument  itself,  he  adds,  that  this 
argument  Mr.  Baxter  often  tells  us  was  esteemed 
unanswerable  by  as  great  a  man  as  Archbishop 
Usher  (p.  100).  I  have  often  told  this  author 
how  little  I  am  moved  with  great  names  in  mat- 
ters of  judgment;  nor  will  he,  I  well  know,  vield 
to  the  force  of  every  argument' (in  other  points) 
which  Archbishop  Usher  thought  unanswerable. 
And  therefore  I  hope  he  will  give  me  leave  freely 
to  examine  the  force  of  this  argument.  For  I 
am  so  far  from  thinking  it  unanswerable,  that  I 
cannot  help  thinking  it  will  be  found  to  prove  the 
very  contrary  to  the  design  of  this  author  in 
alleging  it.  For, 

"  1st.  Either  this  bishop  whom  the  presbyters 
of  Alexandria  constituted  from  the  very  time  of 
St.  Mark  the  Evangelist,  to  the  time  of  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,  was  no  more  than  a  prime-presby- 
ter, or  president  of  the  council  of  presbyters,  or  he 
was  bishop  in  the  peculiar  sense  of  the  word.  If 
he  were  more  than  a  prime-presbyter,  it  will  not 
follow  that  because  they  chose  their  own  presi- 


158 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


dent,  therefore  much  more  might  they  ordain 
other  presbyters,- which  is  the  argument  here  used. 
For  it  is  a  much  less  thing  for  persons  of  the  same 
office,  met  together  to  choose  one  of  themselves, 
to  practice  amongst  themselves  for  the  better 
management  of  their  joint  counsels,  than  to  call 
other  persons  to  their  own  office,  in  which  they 
had  no  part  before.  But  if  he  was  bishop,  in  the 
peculiar  sense  of  the  word  (as  I  doubt  not  St. 
Jerome  meant,  and  this  argument  supposeth), 
then  here  is  demonstration  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween bishops  and  presbyters  from  the  very  days 
of  the  Apostles. 

"  2d.  This  very  choosing  themselves  a  bishop 
is  so  far  from  proving  that  they  were  not  under 
restraint  in  the  point  of  ordination,  that  it  is  the 
very  putting  themselves  under  that  restraint ;  as  a 
people  choosing  any  person,  from  amongst  them- 
selves, to  be  their  king,  restrains  that  right,  which 
was  oriainallv  in  them,  of  grantinsr  commissions 
of  lesser  importance  ;  and  is  designed  to  devolve 
the  power  of  doing  this  upon  this  single  per- 
son ;  so  far  is  it  from  proving  that  they  themselves 
continue  to  exercise  it.  And,  according  to  St. 
Jerome,  the  presbyters  choosing  and  setting  a 
bishop  over  themselves,  is  the  thing  which  put  a 
period  to  their  ruling  the  churches  in  common, 
and  with  a  proper  equality ;  and  from  the  very 
time  of  their  doing  this,  they  must,  according  to 
him,  be  under  restraint.    So  that  instead  of  argu- 


tESTIMOKY  OF  HOADLEY. 


169 


ing,  the  presbyters  chose  their  bishop,  a  superior 
officer,  therefore  much  more  ordained  presbyters; 
I  argue,  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  chose  to 
themselves  bishops  from  the  very  time  of  the 
Apostles ;  therefore  from  that  time  they  were  re- 
strained from  ordaining  other  presbyters,  suppos- 
ing they  had  an  original  right  to  that  work. 

"  For  what,  I  pray,  is  that  restraint  which 
BIbndel  and  this  author  contend  that  the  presby- 
ters voluntarily  put  themselves  under,  near  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  ;  but  what  resulted 
from  their  choosing,  from  amongst  themselves, 
governors  whom  they  called  bishops  ?  And  what 
is  that  restraint  which  St.  Jerome  speaks  of, 
but  the  very  order  that  one  should  be  chosen  from 
among  the  presbyters,  to  whom  the  care  of  the 
Church  should  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  committed  ? 
Nay,  supposing  this  person  chosen  by  them  to 
have  been  only  a  prime-presbyter,  what  I  am  say- 
ing is  so  evident,  that  Blondel  himself  acknowl- 
edges such  a  restraint  upon  the  presbyters  by  their 
choice  of  a  prime-presbyter,  as  that  nothing  was 
afterwards  to  be  done,  in  which  he  was  not  to 
bear  a  principal  part.  And  St.  Jerome's  only 
design  being  to  point  out  the  occasion  of  that 
distinction  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  which  pre- 
vailed in  his  days,  and  on  which  the  restraint  put 
upon  presbyters,  according  to  him,  was  settled  in 
the  Church  ;  to  be  sure  he  could  mean  nothing  in 
these  words,  less  than  to  prove  that  this  restraint 


160 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIKENlCON. 


was  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria  from  the  time 
of  St.  Mark,  by  showing  that  from  that  time  the 
presbyters  of  that  Church  had  chosen  bishops  and 
placed  them  over  themselves. 

"  For  the  sentence  going  before  is  to  this  pur- 
pose, that  though  in  his  opinion  the  original  de- 
sign was  that  presbyters  should  govern  by  their 
presbyteries  ;  yet  that  afterwards  one  was  chosen 
from  amongst  them  to  be  set  over  the  rest ;  and 
that  this  was  designed  for  the  preventing  some 
abuses  and  schisms.  To  prove  this,  he  appeals  to 
the  Church  of  Alexandria,  in  which  he  saith  the 
presbyters,  even  from  the  time  of  St.  Mark,  had 
chosen  one  from  amongst  themselves  whom  they 
called  peculiarly  by  the  name  of  bishop,  to  be 
sure  for  the  purpose  above  mentioned,  in  reme- 
dinm  schismalis.  If,  therefore,  the  distinction  in 
his  days  between  the  offices  of'  bishops  and 
priests  was  in  remedium  schismalis,  it  follows  that 
this  election  of  a  bishop  (which  he  here  speaks 
of)  was  for  the  same  end.  For  no  one  can  say 
but  that  St.  Jerome  is  here  speaking  of  that  choice 
of  a  bishop  which  restrained  the  power  of  presby- 
ters, whatever  he  supposed  them  to  be. 

"  3d.  It  doth  not  in  the  least  follow  from  the 
presbyters  choosing  their  own  bishops,  that  they 
pretended  to  ordain  presbyters ;  and  yet  the  whole 
of  this  argument  is  founded  upon  their  choosing 
their  own  bishops.  Suppose  it  be  said  of  any 
company  of  men,  that  they  met  together  and 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOADI.EY. 


161 


chose  one  from  amongst  themselves,  and  having 
placed  him  by  that  means  in  a  higher  station, 
they  called  him  king ;  doth  it  follow  because  they 
thus  made  him  king,  therefore  to  be  sure  they  did 
what  is  of  lesser  importance  ;  that  therefore  any 
of  them,  or  all  of  them,  after  this,  gave  commis- 
sions to  other  officers  under  this  king  ?  No  ;  from 
the  time  of  that  election  he  is,  by  the  will  of  God 
and  the  law  of  nature,  invested  with  all  due  au- 
thority; and  it  is  his  business  to  give  commissions 
to  all  inferior  officers.  Just  so  it  is  in  the  case 
before  us.  Let  it  be  granted  that  those  presbyters 
chose  one  out  of  their  number,  and  that  having 
by  that  means  placed  him  in  a  higher  station,  they 
called  him  bishop,  which  is  all  St.  Jerome  saith, 
it  will  not  follow  from  hence  that  after  this  elec- 
tion, they  assumed  to  themselves  to  give  commis- 
sions to  inferior  ecclesiastical  officers ;  but  rather 
that  from  this  time,  this  was  one  of  his  peculiar 
businesses,  as  I  have  just  now  been  observing. 

"4th.  As  there  is  no  consequence  in  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  hence,  so  neither  doth  St.  Je- 
rome give  the  least  color  to  such  an  argument,  but 
in  the  same  place  useth  such  expressions  as  abso- 
lutely overthrow  it.  He  doth  not  say  that  these 
presbyters  conferred  power  and  authority  upon 
their  bishop ;  nor  doth  it  follow  from  what  he 
saith,  any  more  than  it  follows  from  a  prince's 
nominating  a  person  to  a  bishopric,  that  such 
nomination  is  the  sole  authority  by  which  he  acts 
u 


I 


162  THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICOK. 

in  ecclesiastical  matters.  He  may,  notwithstand- 
ing this,  derive  his  authority  from  the  will  of  God  ; 
and  the  instant  of  the  election  be  the  time  from 
whence  the  will  of  God  concerning  his  authority 
must  be  supposed  to  take  place.  And  therefore 
this  author  doth  not  well  to  add  such  expressions 
as  these  to  those  of  St.  Jerome,  to  embellish  his 
argument,  which  at  least  must  rest  wholly  upon 
tiiat  father. 

"  Again,  he  useth  the  word  episcopus  in  a  pecul- 
iar sense,  as  signifying  an  office  distinct  from 
presbyters.  The  same  word  he  useth  in  the  very 
next  sentence  in  the  same  sense,  and  denies  to 
presbyters  the  right  of  ordination,  as  I  have  shown 
before,  which  he  here  appropriates  to  bishops.  But 
what  is  very  remarkable,  he  illustrates  the  pres- 
byters choosing  their  bishop  by  the  similitude  of 
an  army  choosing  their  general.  Now,  from  hence 
it  follows,  that  as  the  army  after  such  election, 
pretended  not  to  the  granting  inferior  commissions 
in  it,  but  did  indeed,  by  means  of  this'  election, 
devolve  this  upon  the  person  chosen  general ;  so 
neither  did  the  presbyters,  after  the  election  of 
their  bishop,  pretend  to  the  granting  commissions 
to  inferior  presbyters ;  and  this  for  a  very  good 
reason,  namely,  because  they  had,  by  this  election, 
devolved  this  business  upon  the  person  chosen 
bishop,  as  they  had  the  care  of  the  churches  in 
all  cases  in  a  very  peculiar  manner.  But,  as  I 
pass,  I  cannot  forbear  asking,  if  this  account,  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOADLEY. 


163 


Alexandrian  presbyters  choosing  their  own  bish- 
ops, be  true,  what  becomes  of  that  inalienable 
right  of  the  laity  in  elections,  of  which  this  author 
upon  another  occasion  speaks? 

"  Thus  have  we  seen  of  how  little  force  this  ar- 
gument, from  these  presbyters  choosing  their  own 
bishop,  is,  to  prove  that  they  did  all  that  time  ex- 
ercise their  supposed  right  of  ordination  ;  and  how 
little  satisfaction  this  gives  us  in  our  inquiry,  how 
and  when  the  exercise  of  this  right  came  to  "be 
restrained  in  the  Church.  From  whence  I  like- 
wise draw  an  argument  that  it  was  the  same  (in 
St.  Jerome's  opinion)  in  all  churches,  as  in  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  because  he  makes  the  gov- 
ernment of  churches  to  be  always  the  same  in  all 
places  ;  and  the  decree  on  which  he  founds  the 
restraint  put  upon  presbyters  to  be  universal  and 
at  the  same  time. 

"  Consequently,  therefore,  if  it  was  in  pursuance 
of  this  desire  that  the  Alexandrian  Church  chose 
bishops,  and  that  by  this  choice  the  presbyters 
were  restrained  in  the  exercise  of  their  original 
right,  this  restraint  must  likewise  be  as  early, 
according  to  St.  Jerome,  in  all  other  churches, 
that  is,  from  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles.  Con- 
sequently, likewise,  if  the  learned  Blondel  be  the 
defender  and  follower  of  St.  Jerome,  he  cannot 
pretend  to  fix  the  time  of  this  restraint  in  any  of 
the  churches  later  than  this.  Much  less  can  he, 
consistently  with  himself,  first  fix  the  time  of  this 


164 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIBENICOK. 


restraint  (which  St.  Jerome  represents  as  at  the 
same  time  universal)  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  afterwards  argue  from  St.  Jerome 
himself,  that  it  could  not  be  in  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  till  the  end  of  the  third  century. 

"  However,  this  may  be  palliated  ;  having  ex- 
amined the  so  much  boasted  instance  of  the  Al- 
exandrian presbyters,  and  found  it  so  mistaken 
agd  so  misapplied,  I  shall  not  trouble  myself  to 
search  that  dark  author  for  any  other  less  mate- 
rial instances,  but  content  myself  with  having 
considered  what  is  principally  urged  and  depended 
on  by  those  who  have  given  the  latest  occasion  of 
the  present  debate." 

Thus,  with  consummate  ability,  does  Bishop 
Hoadley  argue  the  question  of  moderate  episco- 
pacy;  and  if  the  argument  could  have  always 
been  presented  with  equal  wisdom  and  prudence, 
many  objections  would  not  have  been  offered  to 
its  acceptance. 

For  Bishop  Hoadley  opposes  with  equal  power 
the  doctrine  of  an  essential,  unbroken,  episcopal 
succession,  which  has  so  largely  brought  odium 
upon  the  Episcopal  cause,  and  occasioned  its  re- 
jection by  so  many  learned  and  candid  persons. 

On  page  489  of  this  same  volume,  this  author 
remarks  :  "  I  think  not  an  uninterrupted  line  of 
succession  of  regularly  ordained  bishops  neces- 
gary." 

In  his  "  Preservative  "  (p.  75),  he  more  largely 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOADLEY. 


165 


argues  the  point,  and  thus  forcibly  expresses  his 
convictions  :  I  do  not  love,  I  confess,  so  much 
as  to  repeat  the  principal  branches  of  their  be- 
loved scheme  ;  they  are  so  difl'ereiit,  vvhencesoever 
they  come,  from  the  voice  of  the  gospel.  When 
they  would  claim  you,  as  their  fellow-lafiorers  the 
Papists  do,  by  telling  you  that  you  cannot  hope 
for  the  favor  of  God  but  in  the  strictest  commun- 
ion in  their  Church  (which  is  the  true  Church  of 
England,  governed  by  bishops  in  a  regular  suc- 
cession) ;  that  God  hath  himself  hung  your  salva- 
tion upon  this  nicety  ;  that  He  dispenses  none  of 
His  favors  or  graces  but  by  the  hands  of  them 
and  their  subordinate  priests  ;  that  you  cannot  be 
authoritatively  blessed  or  released  from  your  sins 
but  by  them  who  are  the  regular  priests  ;  that 
churches  under  other  bishops  (i.  e.,  other  than  in 
regular  succession)  are  schismatical  conventicles, 
made  up  of  excommunicatea  persons,  both  clergy 
and  laity,  out  of  God's  Church,  and  out  of  His 
favor :  I  say,  when  such  arguments  as  these  are 
urged,  you  need  only  to  have  recourse  to  a  gen- 
eral answer  to  this  whole  heap  of  scandal  and 
defamation  upon  the  will  of  God,  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  and  the  Church  of  England  in  particular; 
that  you  have  not  so  learned  Christ,  or  the  design 
of  his  gospel,  or  even  the  foundation  of  this  par- 
ticular part  of  his  Church,  reformed  and  estab- 
lished in  England. 

"  The  following   arguments  will  justify  you 


166 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


which,  therefore,  ought  to  be  frequently  in  the 
thoughts  of  all  who  have  any  regard  for  the  nnost 
important  point :  God  is  just  and  equal  and  good, 
and  as  sure  as  He  is,  He  cannot  put  the  salvation 
and  hapginess  of  any  man  upon  what  He  himself 
has  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  any  man  upon 
earth  to  be  entirely  satisfied  in  ;  it  hath  not 
pleased  God,  in  His  providence,  to  keep  up  any 
proof  of  the  least  probability,  or  moral  possibility 
of  a  regular  uninterrupted  succession." 

This  language,  addressed  by  this  eminent  de- 
fender of  Episcopacy,  to  the  Non-jurors  of  his 
day,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Tractarians  and 
Ritualists  of  our  own  times,  their  true  successors, 
and  deserves  the  solemn  consideration  of  every 
member  of  our  communion  who  seeks  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  advancernent  of  the  truth,  and  of  a 
pure  gospel. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


SUCCESSION  OF  SOUND  DOCTRINE,  THE  TRUE  APOS- 
TOLIC SUCCESSION. 

As  a  fitting  ^lose  to  this  examination  of  the 
Institutions  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  in  their 
bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  episcopal  succession, 
we  give  the  views  of  nearly  all  the  prominent 
writers  under  Edward  and  Elizabeth,  with  those 
of  other  later  standard  writers,  on  this  important 
topic. 

That  the  Reformers  regarded  the  succession  of 
Scriptural  truth  as  the  succession  by  vi^hich  the 
Church  of  God  was  to  be  distinguished,  is  clear 
from  their  writings.  They  make  no  distinct 
mention  of  the  subject  in  the  Articles,  or  Ordinal. 
Inasmuch  as  many  modern  writers  have  asserted 
that  valid  succession  is  ministerial  and  tactual, 
and  must  be  episcopal  and  uninterrupted,  in 
order  to  find  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  this 
subject,  and  to  expose  a  pernicious  error,  we  must 
turn  to  the  writings  of  the  Compilers  under  Ed- 
ward, and  the  Revisers  under  Elizabeth. 


168 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


JOHN  BRADFORD   (d.  1555). 

A  clear  statement  of  the  matter  is  made  by 
John  Bradford,  Bishop  Ridley's  chaplain,  "  whom 
in  my  conscience,"  said  Ridley,  "  I  judge  more 
worthy  to  be  a  bishop,  than  many  of  us  that  be 
bishops  already,  to  be  a  parish  priest."  He  was 
the  man  whom,  of  all  others,  the  Papists  labored 
to  reclaim. 

Dr.  Harpsfield,  the  papal  examiner,  held  the 
following  conversation  with  .Bradford :  — 

"  The  Church  hath  also,"  saith  he,  "succession 
of  bishops."  And  here  he  made  much  ado  to 
prove  that  this  was  an  essential  point. 

*'  You  say  as  you  would  have  it,"  quoth  I ;  "  for 
if  this  point  fail  you,  all  the  Church  you  go  about 
to  set  forth  will  fall  down.  You  shall  not  find  in 
all  the  Scripture  this  your  essential  point  of  suc- 
cession of  bishops,"  quoth  I.  "  In  Christ's  Church 
Antichrist  will  sit." 

"  Tell  me,"  quoth  he,  "  were  not  the  Apostles 
bishops  ?  " 

"  No,"  quoth  I,  "  except  you  make  a  new  def- 
inition of  bishops ;  that  is,  give  them  no  certain 
place." 

"  Indeed,''  said  he,  "  the  Apostles'  office  was 
more  than  bishops,  for  it  was  universal ;  but  yet 
Christ  instituted  bishops  in  His  Church,  as  Paul 
saith,  '  He  hath  given  pastors,  prophets;'  so  that 
I  trow  it  proved  by  the  Scriptures  the  succession 
of  bishops  to  be  an  essential  point." 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  169 


To  this  I  answered  that  "  the  ministry  of  God's 
word  and  ministers  is  an  essential  point ;  but  to 
translate  this  to  bishops  and  their  succession," 
quoth  I,  "  is  a  plain  subtility ;  and  therefore," 
quoth  I,  "  that  it  may  be  plain,  I  will  ask  you  a 
question.  Tell  me  whether  the  Scriptures  know 
any  difference  between  bishops  and  ministers 
whom  you  call  priests  ?  " 

«  No,"  saith  he. 

"  Well,  then,  go  on  forward,"  quoth  I,  "  and  let 
us  see  what  you  get  now  by  the  succession  of 
bishops,  that  is  of  ministers;  which  cannot  be 
understood  of  such  bishops  as  minister  not,  but 
lord  it." 

"  The  next  day,"  writes  Bradford,  "  Master 
Harpsfield  began  a  very  long  oration  almost  three 
quarters  of  an  hour  long,  first  repeating  what 
he  had  said,  and  how  far  w^e  had  gone  over 
night,  and  therewith  did  begin  to  prove  upward 
succession  of  bishops  here  in  England,  for 
eight  hundred  years ;  in  France,  at  Lyons, 
for  twelve  hundred  years;  in  Spain,  at  Hispallen, 
for  eight  hundred  years ;  in  Italy,  at  Milan,  for 
twelve  hundred  years,  laboring  by  this  to  prove 
his  Church  ;  whereto  he  used  succession  of  bishops 
in  the  last  Church  for  the  more  confirmation  of 
his  words,  and  so  concluded  with  an  exhortation 
and  an  interrogation :  the  exhortation  that  I 
could  obey  his  Church ;  the  interrogation,  whether 
I  could  show  any  B^ch  succession  for  the  demori^ 


170 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


stration  of  my  Church  (for  so  he  called  it)  which 
I  followed." 

Now  what  was  the  reply  to  this  argument,  a 
facsimile  of  all  exclusive  succession  arguments 
since  ?  — 

"  Unto  this,  his  long  oration,  I  made  a  short 
answer,  how  that  my  memory  was  evil  for  to 
answer  particularly  his  long  oration ;  therefore  I 
would  generally  do  it,  thinlting  that  because  his 
oration  was  rather  to  persuade  than  to  prove,  that 
a  general  answer  would  serve.  So  I  told  him, 
that  if  Christ  or  His  Apostles,  being  here  on  earth, 
had  been  demanded  of  the  prelates  of  the  Church, 
then  to  have  made  a  demonstration  of  the  Church 
by  succession  of  high  priests,  which  had  approved 
the  doctrine  He  had  taught:  'I  think,'  quoth  I, 
'that  Christ  here  would  have  done  as  I  do ;  that 
is:  would  have  brought  forth  that  which  upholdeth 
the  Church,  even  the  verity  of  the  word  of  God 
taught  and  believed,  not  of  the  high  priests 
(which  of  long  time  had  persecuted  it),  but  of 
the  prophets  and  other  good,  simple  men,  which 
perchance  were  counted  for  heretics  by  the 
Church,  that  is,  with  them  that  were  ordained 
high  priests  in  the  Church  ;  to  whom  the  true 
Church  was  not  then  tied  by  any  succession,  but 
the  word  of  God.'  "    (Vol.  i.  pp.  501,  505.) 


TKUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


171 


BISHOP  RIDLEY  (d.  1555). 

This  view  of  Bradford,  of  great  importance  in 
this  connection,  is  maintained  by  Bishop  Ridley, 
confessedly,  of  all  the  Edwardian  Reformers,  of 
most  influence  generally  in  our  communion.  In 
his  farewell  letter  to  his  Christian  friends,  written 
a  few  days  before  his  martyrdom,  Ridley  says  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  :  "  It  may  justly  be  called 
Apostolici,  that  is,  true  disciples  of  the  Apostles, 
and  also  that  church  and  congregation  of  Chris- 
tians an  apostolic  church,  yea,  and  that,  certain 
hundred  years  after  the  same  was  first  erected  and 
builded  upon  Christ,  by  the  true  apostolical  doc- 
trine taught  by  the  mouths  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves. ...  So  long  and  so  many  hundred  years 
as  that  see  did  truly  teach  and  preach  that  gospel, 
that  religion,  exercise  that  power,  and  ordered 
everything  by  these  laws  and  rules,  which  that 
see  received  of  the  Apostles,  and,  as  Tertullian 
saith,  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  and  Christ  of  God  ; 
so  long  (I  say)  that  see  might  well  have  been 
called  Peter  and  Paul's  chair  and  see,  or  rather 
Christ's  chair,  and  the  bishop  thereof  Apostolicus, 
or  a  true  disciple  and  successor  of  the  Apostles, 
and  a  minister  of  Christ.  .  .  . 

"  For  understand,  my  lords,  it  was  neither  for 
the  privilege  of  the  place  or  person  thereof,  that 
that  see  and  bishop  thereof  were  called  Apostolic, 
but  for  the  true  trade  of  Christ'' s  religion,  which 
was  taught  and  maintained  in  that  see  at  the 


172 


THE  PKIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


first,  and  of  those  godly  men.  And  therefore  as 
truly  and  justly  as  that  see  then,  for  that  true 
trade  of  religion  and  consanguinity  of  doctrine 
with  the  religion  and  doctrine  of  Christ's  Apos- 
tles, was  called  apostolic  ;  so,  as  truly  and  justly, 
for  the  contrariety  of  religion  and  diversity  of 
doctrine  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  that  see 
and  the  bishop  thereof  at  this  day  both  ought  to 
be  called,  and  are  indeed,  antichristian.  That 
see  is  the  seat  of  Satan  ;  and  the  bishop  of  the 
same,  that  maintaiiieth  the  abominations  thereof, 
is  Antichrist  himself  indeed."  Writing  to  Bradford 
in  reference  (•'  Works,"'  414,418)  to  the  discussion 
on  the  Church  given  above,  Ridley  exclaims : 
"  O  good  Lord,  that  they  are  so  busy  with  you 
about  the  Church !  It  is  no  new  thing,  brother, 
that  is  happened  unto  you !  for  that  was  always 
the  clamor  of  the  wicked  bishops  and  priests, 
against  God's  true  prophets.  '  The  temple  of  the 
Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the 
Lord  ! '  and  they  said,  '  The  law  shall  not  depart 
from  the  priest,  nor  wisdom  from  the  elder ; '  and 
yet  in  them  whom  only  they  esteemed  for  priests 
and  sages,  there  was  neither  God's  law  nor  godly 
wisdom." 

The  stress  that  Ridley  lays  on  the  necessity  of 
sound  doctrine  to  preserve  church  character  is  very 
observable. 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSIOK. 


178 


BISHOP  LATIMER  (d.  1555). 

Bishop  Latimer,  in  his  conference  with  Ridley, 
expresses  himself  in  a  similar  manner. 

"The  Scripture  is  not  of  any  private  interpreta- 
tion at  any  time.  For  such  a  one,  though  he  be 
a  layman,  fearing  God,  is  much  more  fit  to 
understand  holy  Scripture  than  any  arrogant  and 
proud  priest,  yea,  than  the  bishop  himself,  be  he 
never  so  glistening  and  great  in  all  his  pontificals. 
.  .  .  Let  the  Papists  go  with  their  long  faith  ;  be 
thou  contented  with  the  short  faith  of  the  saint, 
which  is  revealed  unto  view  the  word  of  God 
written.  Adieu  to  all  popish  fantasies,  Amen. 
For  one  man  having  the  Scripture  and  good 
reason  for  him,  is  more  to  be  esteemed  himself 
alone,  than  a  thousand  such  as  they  either  gath- 
ered together,  or  succeeding-  one  another "  (p. 
114). 

BISHOP  HOOPER  (d  1555). 

Bishop  Hooper  —  Edward's  favorite  preacher, 
and  who  if  Edward  had  lived  would  have  exer- 
cised a  most  commanding  influence  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  Reformation  —  is  most  forcible  in 
the  expression  of  two  views  on  this  point. 

Hooper  had  differed  with  Ridley  with  respect 
to  the  continuance  in  use  of  the  Roman  vest- 
ment. These  differences  were  settled.  Ridley 
writes,  "  To  my  most  dear  brother,  and  reverend 
fellow-elder  in  Christ,  John  Hooper,  grace  and 


174 


THE  I'KIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


peace.  .  .  .  Forasmuch  as  I  understand  by  your 
works,  which  I  have  yet  but  superficially  seen, 
that  we  thoroughly  agree  and  wholly  consent  tO' 
gether  in  those  things  which  are  the  grounds  and 
substantial  points  of  our  religion,  against  the 
which  the  world  so  furiously  rageth  in  these  our 
days,  howsoever  in  time  past  in  swollen  waters 
and  circumstances  of  religion,  your  wisdom  and 
my  simplicity  (I  confess)  have  in  some  points 
varied,"  etc.  • 

In  his  "  Declaration  of  Christ  and  his  Office," 
1547,  Hooper  writes :  "  Such  as  teach  the  people 
to  know  the  Church  by  these  signs  :  namely,  the 
traditions  of  ujen  and  the  succession  of  bishops, 
teach  wrong."'  In  the  "  Confession  of  his  Faith," 
written  1550,  he  says :  "  As  concerning  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  I  believe  that  the  Church  is 
bound  to  no  sort  of  people,  or  any  ordinary  suc- 
cession of  bishops,  cardinals,  or  such  like,  but 
unto  the  very  word  of  God ;  and  none  of  them 
should  be  believed  but  when  they  speak  the  word 
of  God."  In  1552,  he  charges  his  clergy  to  in- 
struct their  people  :  "  lest  that  any  man  should  be 
seduced,  believing  himself  to  be  bound  unto  any 
ordinary  succession  of  bishops  and  priests,  but 
only  unto  the  word  of  God  and  the  right  use  of 
his  sacraments."  ("Works,"  i.  82;  ii.  90,  120.) 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  176 


ARCHDEACON  PHILPOT  (d.  1555). 

Archdeacon  Philpot,  an  accomplished  Can- 
onist under  Edward,  and  a  martyr,  when  the 
Archbishop  of  York  urged  :  "  Rome  hath  known 
succession  of  bishops,  which  your  Church  hath 
not ;  ergo^  that  is  the  Catholic  Church,  and  yours 
is  not,  because  there  is  no  such  succession  can  be 
proved  in  your  Church,"  replied  :  "  I  deny,  my  lord, 
that  succession  of  bishops  is  an  infallible  point  to 
know  the  Church  by  ;  for  there  may  be  a  succes- 
sion of  bishops  known  in  a  place,  and  yet  there 
be  no  church,  as  at  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  and 
in  other  places,  where  the  Apostles  abode  as  well 
as  at  Rome.  But  if  you  put  to  the  succession 
of  bishops,  succession  of  doctrine  withal  (as  St. 
Augustine  doth),  I  will  grant  it  to  be  a  good 
proof  for  the  Catholic  Church ;  but  a  local  suc- 
cession is  nothing  available.  .  ,  .  Although  you 
can  prove  the  succession  of  bishops  from  Peter, 
yet  this  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  Rome  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  unless  you  can  prove  the  profession 
of  Peter's  faith,  whereupon  the  Catholic  Church 
is  builded,  to  have  continued  in  his  successors  at 
Rome,  and  at  this  present  time."  ("  Examina- 
tions," pp.  37, 137.) 

ARCHBISHOP  CRANMER  (d.  1556). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer  in  this  connection,  inasmuch  as  his  views  on 
this  subject  are  acknowledged  to  be  as  compre- 


176 


THE  PRIMITITIVE  EIRENICOK. 


hensive  as  any  of  his  contemporaries,  and  have 
been  previously  referred  to  in  this  volume.  We  see 
from  the  language  of  these  most  prominent  and 
influential  of  the  divines  under  Edward,  that  the 
exclusive  uninterrupted  episcopal  succession  the- 
ory, was  by  all  rejected. 

The  translator  of  Cranmer's  "  Confutation  of 
Unwritten  Verities,"  a  contemporary,  writes  (p.  11, 
Parker  Society  ed.) :  "  Such  gross  ignorance  (I 
would  to  God  it  were  but  ignorance  indeed)  is 
entered  into  their  heads,  and  such  arrogant  bold- 
ness possesseth  their  hearts,  that  they  are  bold  to 
affirm  no  church  to  be  a  true  church  of  God,  but 
that  which  standeth  by  ordinary  succession  of 
bishops,  in  such  pompous  and  glorious  sort  as 
now  is  seen.  ...  As  sweet  agreeth  with  sour, 
black  with  white,  darkness  with  light,  and  evil 
with  good ;  even  so  this  outward,  seen,  and  visible 
Church,  consisting  of  the  ordinary  succession  of 
bishops,  agreeth  with  Christ."  The  name  of  this 
author  is  not  ascertained. 

We  pass  now  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the 
period  of  the  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book. 

BISHOP  JEWEL  (d.  1571). 

And  first  we  have  Bishop  Jewel,  the  most 
learned  of  the  bishops,  declaring  in  his  "  Apol- 
ogy," a  public  work:  "  God's  grace  is  promised 
to  a  good  mind,  and  to  any  one  that  feareth  Him, 
not  to  sees  and  successions."  In  the  "  Defense  of 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCHSSION. 


177 


his  Apology  "  (p.  201),  he  writes  :  "  To  be  Peter's 
lawful  successor,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  leap  into 
Peter's  stall.  Lawful  succession  standeth  not 
only  in  succession  of  place,  but  also  and  much 
rather,  in  doctrine  and  diligence." 

Harding,  the  Romanist,  asks  Jewel :  "  If  you 
cannot  show  your  bishoply  pedigree,  if  you  can 
prove  no  succession,  then  whereby  hold  you  ? 
Tell  us  the  original  and  first  spring  of  your 
Church  !  Show  us  the  register  of  your  bishops, 
continually  succeeding  one  another  from  the  be- 
ginning, so  as  that  fails  bishops  have  some  one 
of  the  Apostles  or  apostolic  men-  for  his  author 
and  predecessor.  How  can  you  prove  your  vo- 
cation ?  By  what  authority  usurp  you  the  ad- 
ministration of  doctrine  and  sacraments?  What 
can  you  allege  for  the  right  and  proof  of  your 
ministry  ?  Who  hath  called  you?  Who  hath  laid 
hands  on  you  ?  By  what  example  hath  he  done 
it?  How  and  by  whom  were  you  consecrated? 
Who  hath  sent  you?  Who  hath  committed  to 
you  the  office  you  take  upon  you  ?  Be  you  a 
priest  or  be  you  not  ?  If  you  be  not,  how  dare 
you  usurp  the  name  and  office  of  a  bishop?  If 
you  be,  who  gave  you  orders?  The  institution 
of  a  priest  was  never  yet  in  the  power  of  a 
bishop  ?  " 

To  this  argument,  similar  to  that  of  Harps- 
field,  what  does  this  writer  of  the  second  "  Book  of 
Homilies,"  and  publisher  of  our  Articles,  reply,  in 

12 


178 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIREXICOK. 


words  which  were  placed  in  the  parish  churches 
of  England  ? 

"  If  it  were  certain  that  the  religion  and  truth 
of  God  passeth  ever  more  orderly  by  succession, 
and  none  otherwise,  then  were  succession,  where- 
of he  hath  told  us  so  long  a  tale,  a  very  good 
substantial  argument  of  the  truth.  But  Christ 
saith,  by  order  of  succession,  '  The  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  chair.'  Annas  and 
Caiaphas,  touching  succession,  were  as  well 
bishops  as  Aaron  and  Eliezar.  Of  succession, 
St.  Paul  saith  unto  the  faithful  at  Ephesns :  '  I 
know  that  after  my  departure  hence,  ravening 
wolves  shall  succeed  me.  And  out  of  yourselves 
there  shall  (by  succession)  spring  up  men  speak- 
ing perversely.'  Therefore  St.  Hierome  saith: 
'  They  be  not  always  the  children  of  holy  men 
That  (by  succession)  have  the  places  of  holy  men.' 
As  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  succeeded  Moses, 
perverting  and  breaking  the  laws  of  Moses  ;  even 
so  do  the  bishops  of  Rome  this  day  succeed 
Christ,  perverting  and  breaking  the  laws  of 
Christ.  .  .  .  Such  affiance  some  time  had  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  their  succession.  There- 
fore they  said  :  '  We  are  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham;' unto  us  hath  God  made  his  promises: 
'  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham  ? ' 
As  for  Christ  *  we  know  not  from  whence  he 
came,'  or  what  can  he  show  for  his  succession. 
And  when  Christ  began  to  reform  their  abuses 


TRUfc:  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


170 


and  errors,  they  said  unto  him,  '  By  what  power 
doest  thou  these  things.  And  who  gave  thee  this 
authority?'  Where  is  thy  succession  ?  Thus  to 
maintain  themselves  in  credit,  for  that  they  had 
continuance  and  succession  from  Aaron  and  sat 
in  Moses'  chair,  they  kept  Christ  quite  out  of 
possession,  and  said  unto  Him,  even  as  Mr.  Hard- 
ing saith  now  unto  us  :  '  Who  ever  taught  us  these 
things  before  thee?  What  ordinary  succession 
and  vocation  had  thou  ?  What  bishop  admitted 
thee?  Who  confirmed  thee  ?  Who  allowed  thee  ? ' 
.  .  .  All  other  things  failing,  they  must  hold 
only  by  succession  ;  and  only  because  they  sit  in 
Moses'  chair  they  must  claim  the  possession  of 
the  whole. 

"  This  is  the  right  and  virtue  of  their  succession. 
.  .  .  We  neither  have  bishops  without  church, 
nor  church  without  bishops.  Neither  doth  the 
Church  of  England  this  day  depend  of  them 
whom  you  often  call  apostates,  as  if  our  Church 
were  no  church  without  them.  .  .  .  They  are  for 
a  great  part  learned  and  grave  and  godly  men,  and 
are  ashamed  to  see  your  follies.  Notwithstand- 
ing, if  there  were  not  one,  neither  of  them  nor  of 
us,  left  alive,  yet  would  not  therefore  the  whole 
Church  of  England  flee  to  Louvaine.  .  .  Whoso- 
ever is  a  member  of  Christ's  body,  whosoever  is 
a  child  of  the  Church,  whosoever  is  baptized  in 
Christ  and  beareth  his  name,  is  fully  invested 
with  their  priesthood,  and  therefore  may  justly  be 


180 


THE  riUMITIVE  EIRENrCO^^ 


called  a  priest.  And  wheresoever  there  be  three 
such  together,  as  Tertullian  saith,  '  yea,  though 
they  be  only  laymen,  yet  have  they  a  church!' 
.  .  .  God's  name  be  blessed  forever!  We  want 
neither  church  nor  priesthood,  nor  any  kind  of 
sacrifice  that  Christ  hath  left  unto  his  faithful." 

"  Faith  Cometh  (not  by  succession,  but)  by  hear- 
ing; and  hearing  cometh  (not  of  legacy  or  inher- 
itance from  bishop  to  bishop,  but)  of  the  word  of 
God.  'Succession,'  you  say,  'is  the  chief  way 
for  any  Christian  man  to  avoid  Antichrist.'  I  grant 
you  if  you  mean  the  succession  of  doctrine.  It 
is  not  sufficient  to  claim  succession  of  place,  it 
behoveth  us  rather  to  have  regard  to  succession 
of  doctrine."    ("  Works,"  iii.  320,  38,  48.) 

BISHOP  PILKINGTON  (died  1575). 

Bishop  Pilkington,  one  of  the  Revisers,  remarks 
("  Works,"  p.  600),  "  Succession  in  doctrine  makes 
them  the  sons  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and 
not  sitting  in  the  same  seat  nor  being  bishops  of 
the  same  place  .  .  .  There  cannot  be  proved  a  suc- 
cession of  tlieir  bishops  in  any  one  place  of  this 
realm  since  the  Apostles.  ...  So  stands  the  suc- 
cession of  the  Church  not  in  mitres,  palaces,  lands, 
or  lordships,  but  in  teaching  some  religion  and  sort- 
ing out  the  contrary.  .  .  .  He  that  does  these 
things  is  the  true  successor  of  the  Apostles.  .  .  . 
When  they  can  bring  the  Apostles'  doctrine  or  life, 
for  example,  to  be  like  their  life  and  teaching,  they 
may  say  they  follow  the  Apostles." 


•TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCKSSION.  l8i 


DR.  WIIITTAKER  (died  1595). 

The  learned  Professor  Whittaker,  in  reply  to 
Beliarmin's  "Disputation  of  Scripture  ".  (p.  570), 
writes  :  "  Thougii  we  should  concede  the  succes- 
sion of  that  Church  unbroken  and  entire,  yet  that 
succession  would  be  a  matter  of  no  weight,  be- 
cause we  regard  not  the  external  succession  of 
place  and  persons,  but  the  internal  one  of  faith 
and  doctrine."  And  elsewhere  he  says:  "Faith 
is,  as  it  were,  the  soul  of  the  succession,  which 
faith,  being  wanting,  the  naked  succession  of 
persons  is  like  a  dead  carcass  without  the  soul. 
The  Fathers  indeed  always  much  more  regarded 
the  succession  of  faith  than  any  unbroken  series 
of  men." 

DR.  wii.LKT  (died  1621). 

Dr.  Willet,  in  his  «  Synopsis  Papismi"  (p.  276), 
writes:  "Every  godly  and  faithful  bishop  is  a 
successor  of  the  Apostles.  We  deny  it  not,  and 
so  are  all  godly  and  faithful  pastors  and  ministers. 
The  province  of  succession,  we  see,  is  in  the 
preaching  of  the  Word,  which  appertaineth  as 
well  to  other  pastors  and  ministers  as  to  bishops." 

DR.  FULKE  (died  1589). 

Dr.  Fulke,  a  noted  antagonist  of  Popery,  in  his 
answer  to  Stapleton  (p.  74),  says  :  "The  Scrip- 
ture requireth  no  succession  of  names,  persons,  or 
places,  but  of  faith  and  doctrine  ;   and  that  we 


182 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


prove  when  we  affirm  our  faith  and  doctrine  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles.  Neither  had  the 
Fathers  any  other  meaning,  in  calling  upon  new 
upstart  heresies  for  their  succession,  but  by  a 
succession  of  doctrine,  as  well  as  of  persons."  .  .  . 
And  against  Sanders  (p.  26)  :  "  The  same  au- 
thority of  preaching  and  ministering  the  sacra- 
ments, of  binding  and  loosing,  which  the  Apostles 
had,  is  perpetual  in  the  Church,  in  the  bishop  and 
elders,  which  are  all  successors  of  the  Apostles." 

BISHOP  BiLSOX  (died  1G16). 

Bishop  Bilson,  appealed  to  by  Keble  in  support 
of  his  views,  makes  this  forcible  statement,  as 
quoted  by  Brown,  in  his  "  Letters  to  Pusey ' 
(p.  288) :  "  The  succession  is  of  no  weight,  unless 
truth  of  doctrine  and  purity  of  life  be  added  to  it." 

DR.  SUTCLIFFE  (died  1629). 

Dr.  Sutcliffe,  also  appealed  to  by  Keble,  thus 
writes :  "  Stapleton  asserts  that  we  (the  Protes- 
tant churches)  are  destitute  of  the  succession. 
And  he  thinks  we  are  terribly  pressed  by  this 
argument;  but  without  reason.  For  the  exter- 
nal succession,  which  both  heretics  often  have 
and  the  orthodox  have  not,  is  of  no  moment. 
Not  even  our  adversaries  themselves,  indeed,  are 
certain  respecting  their  own  succession.  But  we 
are  certain,  that  our  doctors  have  succeeded  to 
the  Apostles  and  prophets  and   most  ancient 


TRUE  APOStOLiC  SUCCESSION. 


183 


Fathers.  And  moreover,  if  there  is  any  weight 
in  external  succession,  they  have  succeeded  to  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  throughout  Germany, 
France,  England,  and  other  countries,  and  were 
ordained  by  them."  ("  De  vera  Eccles."  p.  37,  38.) 

CALFHILL  (died  1570). 

In  his  "  Treatise  on  the  Cross,"  p.  230,  this  divine, 
bishop  elect  of  Worcester,  writes  :  "  1.  And  who- 
soever will  be  successors  unto  the  Apostles,  must 
use  this  ministry,  this  trade  of  doctrine,  which,  if 
they  continue  in  being  lawfully  called  thereunto 
by  God,  and  have  gifts  competent  to  approve  their 
calling  unto  the  world,  they  care  not  for  the  sign 
of  the  cross  to  be  imprinted  in  them,  the  virtue 
whereof  never  departed  from  them.  Certain  it 
is  that  neither  Scripture  nor  any  learned  father 
commendeth  the  blessing  of  prayer  to  us.  And 
how  yo«r  wisdom  doth  esteem  the  wagging  of 
a  bishop's  fingers  I  greatly  force  not.  I  looked 
rather  that  ye  should  have  commended  the  oil 
for  anointing,  which  the  greasy  merchants  will  have 
in  every  mess. 

"2.  For  the  character  indelebilis.,  'the  mark  un- 
removable,' is  thereby  given.  Yet  there  is  a  way 
to  have  it  out  well  enough,  to  rub  them  well 
favorably  with  salt  and  ashes,  or,  if  that  will  not 
serve,  with  a  little  soap." 


184 


The  PRrMITltE  ElREXtCOK. 


ARcnnisHor  Bancroft  (died  1610). 

"  It  is  most  apparent,  and  cannot  be  denied,  but 
that  Irenaeus,  Cyprian,  TertuUian,  Ambrose, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  and  divei's  other  ancient 
writers,  do  call  the  bishops  the  Apostles'  succes- 
sors ;  insomuch  as  some  of  them,  especially  the 
authors  of  the  ecclesiastical  histories,  do  draw  long 
catalogues  of  the  particular  bishops'  names  that 
succeeded  the  Apostles,  and  other  apostolical  men 
whom  they  made  bishops,  which  catalogues  and 
manner  of  speech  of  the  said  Fathers,  being  used 
by  them  very  fitly  against  such  heretics  as  did 
arise  up  in  their  days,  have  since,  in  our  time, 
been  greatly  abused  by  the  Papists.  Unto  whom 
the  learned  men,  tiiat  have  stood  for  the  truth 
against  them,  by  writing  have  contihually  an- 
swered, that  the  Fathers'  arguments,  drawn  from 
the  said  personal  succession  of  bishops,  were 
very  effectual  so  long  as  the  succession  of  the 
Apostles'  doctrine  did  concur;  wherewithal  that 
the  Fathers,  in  urging  of  the  first,  had  ever  an 
esp&ciaJ  eye  to  the  second,  some  point  of  doctrine 
being  ever  called  in  question  by  the  said  heretics." 
("  Survey,"  chap,  xxvii.  p.  333.) 

ARCHDKACOx  MASON  (died  1621). 

"  That  assertion  of  Stapleton's,  to  wit,  that 
'  wheresoever  this  succession  is,  there  is  also  a 
true  Catholic  Church,'  cannot  be  defended;  but 
Bellarmin  saith,  far  more  truly:  'It  is  not 
necessarily  gathered  that  the  Church  is  always 


TRtJR  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESStON. 


185 


where  there  is  succession.'  For,  besides  this  out- 
ward succession,  there  must  be  likewise  the  in- 
ward succession  of  doctrine  to  make  a  true  church. 
Irenaeiis  describeth  those  which  have  a  true  suc- 
cession from  the  Apostles,  '  to  be  such  as  with 
the  succession  of  the  episcopal  office  have  received 
the  certain  grace  of  truth.'  And  this  kind  of  suc- 
cession he  calleth  'the  principal  succession.'  So 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  having  said  '  that  Athanasius 
succeeded  St.  Mark  in  godliness,'  addeth,  that 
'  this  succession  in  godliness  is  properly  to  be  ac- 
counted succession  ;  for  he  that  holdeth  the  same 
doctrine  is  also  partaker  of  the  same  throne ;  but 
he  that  is  against  the  doctrine  must  be  reported 
an  adversary,  even  while  he  sitteth  on  the  throne, 
for  the  latter  hath  the  name  of  succession,  but  the 
former  hath  the  thing  itself,  and  the  truth.'  There- 
fore you  must  prove  your  succession  in  doctrine, 
otherwise  you  must  be  holden  for  adversaries,  even 
while  you  sit  on  the  throne."  ("  On  the  Consecra- 
tion of  the  Bishops,  &c.,  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land," book  ii.  chap.  i.  p.  41-43.)  Archdeacon 
Mason  elsewhere  remarks :  "  Seeing  a  priest  is 
equal  to  a  bishop  in  the  power  of  order,  he  hath 
equally  intrinsical  power  to  give  orders."  (Tract, 
p.  160.) 

It  is  evident,  from  these  prominent  writers  of 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  that  the  same  view  was 
taken  of  succession,  as  was  held  by  the  Compilers 
under  Edward. 


186 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


BISHOP  BABINGTON  (died  1610). 

If  we  pass  to  the  next  generation  of  divines 
trained  under  the  Revisers,  we  find  Bishop  Bab- 
ington,  of  the  Commission  of  1604,  declaring  : 
"  They  are  true  successors  of  the  Apostles  that 
succeed  in  virtue,  holiness,  truth,  etc.  .  .  .  Not 
that  sit  on  the  same  stool.  Faith  cometh  by 
hearing,  saith  St.  Paul  (not  by  succession),  and 
hearing  cometh  (not  by  legacy  or  inheritance  from 
bishop  to  bishop),  but  by  the  Word  of  God." 

DEAN  FIELD  (died  1616). 

Dean  Field  on  the  same  Commission,  writes 
(Bk.  ii.  ch.  30):  "  Thus  still  we  see  that  truth  of 
doctrine  is  a  necessary  note  whereby  the  Church 
must  be  known  and  discovered,  and  not  ministry, 
or  succession,  or  anything  else  without  it." 

Bk.  iii.  ch.  39,  lie  writes  :  "  It  is  most  evident, 
that  that  wherein  a  bishop  excelieth  a  presbyter 
is  not  a  distinct  power  and  order,  but  an  eminence 
and  dignity  only,  specially  yielded  to  one  above 
all  the  rest  of  the  same  rank  for  order's  sake,  and 
to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church. 
If  bishops  become  enemies  to  God  and  true  relig- 
ion, in  case  of  such  necessity,  as  the  care  and 
government  of  the  Church  is  devolved  to  the  pres- 
byters remaining  Catholic  and  being  of  a  better 
spirit,  so  the  duty  of  ordaining  such  as  are  to  as- 
sist or  succeed  them  in  the  ministry  pertains  to 
them  likewise." 


TRUK  APOSTOLIC  StJCCESSTON. 


187 


BISHOP  DAVENAXT  (died  1641). 

Bishop  Davenant,  a  deputy  to  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  observes  :  "  All  boast  about  local  succession 
is  empty,  unless  a  succession  of  true  doctrine  be 
also  proved."   (Alport's"  Life  of  Davenant,"  i.  20.) 

BISHOP  FRAXCIS  WHITE   (died  lt)24). 

Bishop  Francis  White,  of  Ely  (p.  64) :  "  The 
true  visible  Church  is  named  apostolical,  not  be- 
cause of  local  and  personal  succession  of  bishops, 
(only  or  principally),  but  because  it  retaineth  the 
faith  and  doctrine  of  the  Apostles.  Personal  or 
local  succession  only,  and  in  itself,  maketh  not 
the  Church  apostolical." 

Dii.  THOMAS  WHITE  (died  1604). 

Dr.  White,  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's,  in  reply  to 
a  Jesuit's  objection,  "  The  Protestant  Church  is 
not  apostolic  because  they  cannot  derive  their 
pedigree  lineally  without  interruption  from  the 
Apostles,  as  the  Roman  Church  can  from  St. 
Peter,  but  are  forced  to  acknowledge  some  other, 
as  Calvin,  Luther,  or  some  such,''  replies:  "  Our 
answer. is,  that  the  succession  required  to  make  a 
church  apostolic,  must  be  defined  by  the  doctrine, 
and  not  by  the  place  or  person.  Wheresoever  the 
true  faith  contained  in  the  Scriptures  is  properly 
embraced,  there  is  the  whole  and  full  nature  of 
the  Apostolic  Church.  For  the  external  succes- 
sion we  care  not." 


188 


THR  PRIMITIVE  KIRENrCON. 


ARCHBISHOP  LAUD  (died  1645). 

Archbishop  Laud,  to  whom  we  are  indebted 
for  the  introduction  of  exclusive  churchmanship 
into  the  English  Church,  makes  a  remarkable 
concession  with  respect  to  the  point  we  are  con- 
sidering. 

He  writes,  in  reply  to  Fisher,  the  Jesuit :  "  Be- 
sides for  succession  in  general,  I  shall  say  this : 
It  is  a  great  happiness  where  it  may  be  had  visi- 
ble and  continued,  and  a  great  conquest  over  the 
mutability  of  this  present  world.  But  I  do  not 
find  any  one  of  the  ancient  Fathers  that  makes 
local,  personal,  visible,  and  continued  succession 
a  necessary  sign  or  mark  of  the  Church  in  any  one  • 
place.  .  .  .  Most  evident  it  is,  that  the  succession 
which  the  Fathers  meant  is  not  tied  to  place  or 
person,  but  it  is  tied  to  purity  of  doctrine,"  Else- 
where he  says:  "  I  have  endeavored  to  unite  the 
Calvinists  and  Lutherans ;  nor  have  I  absolutely 
unchurched  them.  I  say  indeed  in  my  book 
against  Fisher,  according  to  St.  Jerome,  No 
bishop,  no  church;  and  that  none  but  a  bishop 
can  ordain,  except  in  cases  of  inevitable  neces- 
sity ;  and  whether  that  be  the  case  in  the  foreign 
churches  the  world  may  judge." 

With  regard  to  the  necessity  of  an  uninter- 
rupted, tactual,  episcopal  succession,  to  constitute 
a  valid  ministry,  we  present  the  opinions  of  a 
few  modern  Episcopal  writers  of  acknowledged 
eminence. 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


189 


DEAN  PEARSON. 

Dean  Pearson,  of  Salisbury,  in  his  Charge,  1842, 
objects  to  "  this  assertion  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  the  apostolic  succession  of  episcopacy  to  the 
existence  of  a  Christian  Church,  or  to  the  validity 
and  efficacy  of  the  Christian  Sacrament;  a  posi- 
tion which,  however  countenanced  by  the  opin- 
ions, whether  of  ancient  or  modern  writers,  and 
consistent  as  it  is  with  the  spirit  of  Romanism,  I 
venture  to  affirm,  without  fear  of  successful  con- 
tradiction, has  never  been  assumed  by  the  Church 
of  England  ;  which,  while  asserting  in  the  preface 
to  her  offices  of  Consecration  and  Ordination,  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  third  order  of  ministers 
in  Christ's  Church,  and  while  lamenting  by  iier 
accredited  writers,  as  an  imperfection  and  defect, 
the  want  of  the  episcopal  order  in  some  of  the 
Reformed  churches  on  the  Continent,  does  not 
excommunicate,  or  on  that  account  refuse  to  ac- 
knowledge them,  while  adhering  to  the  orthodox 
faith,  as  to  all  that  is  essential,  as  true  and  living 
branches  of  Christ's  Universal  Church." 

DEAN  ALFORD.  • 

This  modern  standard  commentator,  on  the 
proof  text  of  Scripture,  upon  which  the  scheme 
of  Apostolic  Succession  is  based.  Matt,  xxviii. 
16-20,  writes :  — 

"We  are  therefore  obliged  to  conclude  that  others 
were  present  (beside  the  eleven),   Whether  these 


190 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICOJf. 


others  were  the  '  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,' 
of  whom  Paul  speaks,  does  not  appear.  '  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach,''  etc.  Demonstrably,  this  was 
not  understood  as  spoken  to  the  Apostles  only ; 
but  to  all  the  brethren.  To  understand  '  icilh  you  ' 
only  of  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  is  to  de- 
stroy the  whole  force  of  these  most  weighty  words. 
Descending  even  into  literal  exactness,  we  may 
see  that '  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  yott,^  makes  '  them. '  into 
'  you '  as  soon  as  they  are  '  made  disciples.^  The 
command  is  to  the  universal  Church  —  to  be  per- 
formed, in  the  nature  of  things,  by  her  ministers 
and  teachers,  the  manner  of  appointing  which  is 
not  here  prescribed,  but  to  be  learned  in  the  un- 
foldings  of  Providence,  recorded  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  who  by  his  special  ordinance  were 
the  founders  and  first  builders  of  that  Church  ;  but 
whose  office,  on  that  very  account,  precluded  the 
idea  of  succession  or  renewal." 

BISHOP  O'bRIEX. 

Bishop  O'Brien,  of  Ossory,  writes,  in  his  Charge, 
184!5 :  "All  our  great  divines,  who  maintain  the 
reality  and  advantages  of  a  succession  '  from  the 
Apostles'  time,'  of  episcopally  consecrated  bish- 
ops, and  episcopally  ordained  ministers  to  the 
Church,  and  who  rejoice  in  the  possession  of  it  by 
our  own  Church,  as  a  signal  blessing  and  priv- 
ilege, not  only  do  not  maintain  that  this  is  abso- 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


191 


lutely  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,  but  are 
at  pains  to  make  it  clear  that  they  do  not  hold 
that  it  is." 

BISHOP  HOPKIXS. 

Our  late  presiding  Bishop  Hopkins,  in  his  "  Re- 
ply to  Milner,"  vol.  ii.  p.  3,  makes  a  similar  state- 
ment :  "  Dr.  Milner  asserts  that  the  Church  of 
England  unchurches  all  other  Protestant  commun- 
ions which  are  without  the  apostolical  succession 
of  bishops.  Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  not  only 
does  Hooker,  whom  he  quotes  on  the  previous 
page,  but  all  the  Reformers,  together  with  Jewel, 
Andrewes,  Usher,  Bramhall,  and  in  a  word,  the 
whole  of  our  standard  divines,  agree  in  maintain- 
ing that  Episcopacy  is  not  necessary  to  the  being, 
but  only  to  the  well-being  of  the  Church ;  and 
hence  they  grant  the  names  of  churches  to  all 
denominations  of  Christians  who  hold  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  o/"  ^/<e  g"os/»e/,  notwithstanding  the 
imperfection  and  irregularity  of  their  ministry. 
.  .  .  This  allegation  of  Dr.  Milner,  therefore, 
is  founded  on  anything  but  truth.  And  it  is  not 
easy  to  believe  that  he  was  ignorant  of  his  error, 
because  the  contrary  is  apparent  in  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  of  our  Church,  and  in  the  whole  strain  of 
her  acts  and  history." 

DR.  WHARTON. 

Dr.  "Wharton,  the  most  distinguished  scholar  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Revision  of  the  American 


192 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIKENICOX. 


Prayer  Book,  thus  expresses  his  views :  "  The 
pretense  of  tracing  up  the  Roman  Church  to  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  is  grounded  on  mere  soph- 
istry. The  succession  which  Roman  Catholics 
thus  unfairly  ascribe  to  their  Church,  belongs  to 
every  other  and  exclusively  to  none.  But  that 
portion  of  the  Christian  Church  is  surely  best 
entitled  to  this  claim,  which  teaches  in  the  great- 
est purity  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles.  .  .  . 
'  They  have  not  the  inheritance  of  Peter,  who  have 
not  Peter's  faith,'  says  St.  Ambrose"  (vol.  ii.  p. 
313). 

DR.  SMITH. 

Dr.  Smith,  of  the  same  Committee,  says  :  "  There 
is  greater  weight  and  moment  of  Christianity  in 
charity,  than  in  all  the  doubtful  questions  about 
which  the  Protestant  Churches  have  been  puzzling 
themselves  and  biting  and  devouring  each  other 
since  the  days  of  the  Reformation.  ...  It  will 
not  be  so  much  a  question  at  the  last  day,  of  what 
church  we  were,  nor  whether  we  were  of  Paul  or 
Apollos,  but  whether  we  were  of  Christ  Jesus, 
and  had  the  true  mark  of  Christianity  in  our  lives." 

ARCHBISHOP  MUSGRAVE. 

We  close  with  the  words  of  the  late  lamented 
Primates  of  England.  Archbishop  Musgrave,  of 
York,  thus  charges  his  clergy,  1842 :  "  You  will 
exceed  all  just  bounds,  if  you  are  continually  in- 
sisting upon  the  necessity  pf  a  belief  jn,  and  tb^ 


TRUE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  193 


certainty  of,  the  apostolical  succession  in  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  of  our  Church,  as  the  only 
security  for  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  so  that 
those  who  do  not  receive  them  from  men  so  ac- 
credited, and  appointed  to  minister,  cannot  par- 
take of  the  promises  and  consolations  of  the 
gospel ;  and  are,  therefore,  in  peril  of  their  salva- 
tion, and  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God, 
which  may  be,  in  the  end,  no  mercies  at  all  to 
them.  .  .  .  This  would  be  to  overstep  the  limits 
of  prudence  and  humility,  and  arrogantly  to  set 
up  a  claim,  which  neither  Scripture,  nor  the  for- 
mularies and  various  offices  of  the  Church,  nor 
the  writings  of  her  best  divines,  nor  the  common 
sense  of  mankind  will  allow. 

"  To  spread  abroad  this  notion,  would  be  to 
make  ourselves  the  derision  of  the  world  ;  it  would 
be  contrary  to  the  mind  of  St.  Paul.  .  .  .  With 
respect  to  this,  and  to  some  other  of  the  questions 
now  brought  into  prominence,  our  Reformers 
appear  to  have  been  of  the  same  mind  as  a  pious 
prelate  of  former  times,  who  distinguished  be- 
tween what  is  essential  to  the  being,  and  what  is 
essential  to  the  well-being  of  the  Church:  —  a 
wise  distinction,  which  good  sense  and  Christian 
charity  should  lead  us  all  ever  to  keep  in  sight." 

ARCHBISHOP  SUMXER. 

This  Christian  view  of  this  subject  is  nowhere 
more  forcibly  expressed  than  by  the  apostolic 

13 


194 


THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


Archbishop  Sumner,  of  Canterbury,  whose  words 
form  a  fitting  close  to  this  inquiry  :  "  The  surest 
sign  of  an  Apostle  is  that  in  which  St.  Paul  took 
comfort,  '  the  work  of  faith,  and  labor  of  love, 
and  patience  of  hope,'  which  his  disciples  exer- 
cised, which  resulted  from  his  ministry,  and 
proved  that  God  was  with  him.  To  'turn  many 
to  righteousness,"  that  is  real  preeminence.  To 
'  win  souls  to  Christ,'  that  is  lasting  honor.  To 
'  take  heed  to  ourselves  and  to  the  doctrine,'  that 
is  both  to  save  ourselves  and  them  that  hear  us. 
To  '  preach  the  Word,  to  be  instant  in  season  and 
out  of  season  ;  to  testify,  both  publicly  and  from 
house  to  house,  repentance  towards  God  and 
faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  —  this  is  to 
be  a  successor  to  the  Apostles.'" 


APPENDIX  A. 


ADDITIONAL  TESTIMONY. 

The  writer  has  recently  met  with  an  interesting 
work  by  an  anonymous  author,  entitled  "  The 
Rights  of  the  Christian  Church,  asserted  against 
the  Romish,  and  all  other  Priests  who  claim  an 
independent  Power  over  it."  The  third  edition 
was  printed  in  London,  1707.  The  writer  com- 
mences his  preface  thus  :  "  Nothing  is  more  dis- 
puted at  present,  than  who  is  the  best  Church- 
man, both  High  and  Low  Church  laying  claim 
to  it." 

This  book,  written  by  a  Churchman  of  exten- 
sive learning,  contains  much  that  bears  upon  mat- 
ters discussed  in  the  preceding  pages.  Among 
other  statements  we  find,  on  p.  50  of  the  preface, 
that  Archbishop  Laud  forbade  the  works  of  Jewel, 
Willet,  and  Foxe  to  be  reprinted.  He  quotes 
from  a  remarkable  speech  of  Lord  Falkland,  a 
distinguished  Cliurchman  and  Royalist,  delivered 
in  Parliament,  Feb.  9,  1640,  these  words,  which 
apply  well  to  our  own  tiioes ;  '•  Mr.  Speaker,  -^He 


196 


APPENDIX  A. 


is  a  great  stranger  in  Israel,  who  knows  not  that 
this  kingdom  \mth  long  labored  under  many  and 
great  oppressions,  both  in  religion  and  liberty  ; 
and  his  acquaintance  here  is  not  great,  or  his  in- 
genuity less,  who  does  not  know  and  acknowledge, 
that  a  great,  if  not  a  principal  cause  of  both  these 
hath  been  some  bishops  and  their  adherents. 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  a  little  search  will  serve  to  find 
them  to  have  been  the  destrtiction  of  unity  under 
pretense  of  uniformity;  to  have  brought  in  super- 
stition and  scandal  under  the  titles  of  reverence 
and  decency ;  to  have  defiled  our  Church,  by  adorn- 
ing otir  churches  ;  to  have  slackened  the  strictness 
of  that  union  which  was  formerly  betwixt  us  and 
those  of  our  religion  beyond  the  sea  ;  an  action 
as  impolitic  as  ungodly. 

As  Sir  Thomas  More  savs  of  the  Casuists, 
their  business  was  not  to  keep  men  from  sinning, 
but  to  inform  them,  fjiiam  prope  ad peccatum  sive 
peccato  liceat  acceih  re  :  so  it  seemed  their  work 
(meaning  the  prelates)  was  to  try  how  much  of  a 
Papist  might  be  brought  in  without  Popery,  and 
to  destroy  as  much  as  they  could  of  the  gospel, 
without  bringing  themselves  into  danger  of  being 
destroyed  by  law. 

Mr.  Speaker,  to  go  yet  farther  :  some  of  them 
have  so  industriously  labored  to  deduce  them- 
selves from  Rome,  that  they  have  given  great 
suspicion,  that  in  gratitude  they  desire  to  return 
thither,  or  at  least  meet  it  half  way.    Some  have 


APPENDIX  A. 


197 


evidently  labored  to  bring  in  an  English  though 
not  a  Roman  Popery  ;  I  mean  not  the  outside 
only  and  dress  of  it,  but  equally  absolute,  a  blind 
obedience  of  the  people  upon  the  clergy,  and  of 
the  clergy  upon  themselves ;  and  have  opposed 
Papacy  beyond  the  sea,  that  they  might  settle 
one  this  side  the  water.  Nay,  common  fame  is 
more  than  ordinarily  false,  if  none  of  them  have 
found  a  way  to  reconcile  the  opinions  of  Rome  to 
the  preferments  of  England,  and  to  be  so  abso- 
lutely, directly,  and  cordially  Papist,  that  it  is  all 
£1500  per  Ann.  can  do  to  keep  them  from  con- 
fessing it." 

"  The  Church  of  England,"  writes  this  author, 
"  was  so  far  from  thinking  a  succession  of  bishops 
necessary  to  her  being,  that  she  did  not  believe 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  appointment ;  for  the 
book  entitled,  '  The  Institution  of  Christian  Man,' 
subscribed  by  the  clergy  in  convocation,  and  con- 
firmed by  Parliament,  owns  bishops  and  presbyters 
by  Scripture  to  be  the  same  ;  and  yet  the  Vatican 
thought  themselves  at  liberty  to  have  an  order  su- 
perior to  that  of  presbyters,  —  a  sufficient  acknowl- 
edgment that  they  thought  no  form  of  govern- . 
rnent  fixed  by  Christ.  And  what  the  sense  of  our 
Church  was  in  1610,  is  plain  from  Archbishop 
Bancroft  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops  owning  the 
ordination  of  presbyters  to  be  valid,  and  therefore 
refusing  to  reordain  the  Scottish  presbyters  who 
were  then  to  be  made  bishops ;  declaring  withal, 


198 


APPENDIX  A. 


that  to  doubt  it  was  to  doubt  whether  there  was  any 
lawf  ul  vocation  in  most  of  the  Reformed  churches. 

"  And  even  till  after  the  Restoration  this  notion 
generally  obtained,  it  being  declared  12  Car.  II., 
That  every  ecclesiastical  person  or  minister,  being- 
ordained  by  any  ecclesiastical  persons  before  the 
2lst  of  December  last,  was  to  enjoy  his  benefice  if 
he  came  into  a  vacant  one ;  which  it  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed would  never  have  been  allowed  if  ordina- 
tion by  bishops  had  been  thought  necessary.  And 
even  at  this  day  presbyters  with  us  not  only  ex- 
ercise all  manner  of  episcopal  jurisdiction,  but 
have,  equally  with  the  bishops,  a  necessary  vote  in 
the  supreme  acts  of  church  government,  the  mak- 
ing of  ecclesiastical  laws  ;  and  before  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  there  was  nothing  I  know  of  to  hinder 
persons  ordained  by  presbyters  from  being  capable 
of  church  preferment,  —  Francis,  Master  of  the 
Temple,  having  no  other ;  and  Bishop  Morton  sent 
one  Calendrini,  who  was  unknown  to  him,  to  the 
ministers  of  the  Walloon  Church  in  London  for 
ordination,  who  being  met  in  a  coUoque  or  synod, 
did  ordain  him,  and  he  had  a  brothership  of  the 
Savoy  conferred  on  him  as  a  minister  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  the  account  of  which  may 
be  seen  at  large  in  the  records  of  the  Walloon 
Church  in  London. 

"And  this  ought  not  to  be  thought  strange^ 
eince  the  Papists  at  this  day  allow  the  ordination 
of  Abbots  Sovereign,  who  are  only  presbyters,  to 


APPENDIX  A. 


199 


be  valid  and  regular ;  and  the  famous  Alexandrian 
Church  for  the  first  235  years  had  no  bishops,  but 
who  had  hands  laid  on  them  by  presbyters  only. 
Eutyeh.  '  Annals,'  Pococke's  ed.  p.  328  ;  Jerome, 
'  ad  Evagr.,'  p.  85.  And  it  is  very  probable  that 
those  bishops  who  converted  so  many  of  our 
northern  parts  to  Christianity,  were  ordained  by 
the  Abbot  of  Nye,  a  presbyter,  to  whose  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction  Scotland  was  subject;  although 
some  who  cannot  agree  about  the  person,  suppose 
he  had  a  journeyman  bishop  to  ordain  for  him. 
Bed.,  '  Eccl.  Hist.,'  lib.  iii.  cA;  Usser, '  Eccl.  Hist.,' 
prim.  org.  p.  707.    .    .  . 

" '  Tis  certain,  the  opinion  of  bishops  being 
necessary  to  the  Church  did  not  prevail,  even  with 
the  clergy,  till  the  treaties  of  marriage  with  Spain 
and  France  ;  but  then  such  unhappy  notions  gen- 
erally obtained  as  tended  to  disunite  Protestants, 
advance  Popery,  and  establish  slavery. 

"  And  when  our  ambassadors  went  no  longer  to 
Charenton,  and  other  such  meetings,  and  the  Lau- 
dian  faction  would  no  longer  own  them  for 
churches  of  Christ,  it  was  then  no  wonder  they 
suffered  persecution  ;  for  with  what  grace  could 
we  quarrel  with  the  Papists  whom  we  own  to  be 
a  true  Church,  for  their  sake,  whom  we  accounted 
no  Church  ! 

"  And  how  fatal  our  breaking  off  communion 
with  the  Reformed  churches  was  to  the  common 
Protestant  cause,  we  may  learn  from  our  famous 


200 


APPENDIX  A. 


historian,  who  gives  an  account  (Clarendon's 
Hist.'  vol.  2,  pp.  74,  75), — 

'"  That  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  when  the 
Reformed  churches  were  persecuted  abroad,  great 
numbers  of  French,  Dutch,  and  Walloons  came 
over  to  England  with  their  families,  and  settled 
many  useful  manufactures  here  ;  how  that  king, 
with  great  piety  and  policy,  granted  them  many 
immunities,  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion,  and 
churches  in  London,  Norwich,  and  Canterbury, 
whereby  the  wealth  of  those  places  marvelously 
increased.'  He  adds,  '  that  Queen  Elizabeth  en- 
larged their  privileges,  and  made  great  use  of  these 
people  in  her  transactions  with  France  and  Hol- 
land, and  by  their  means  kept  up  an  useful  inter- 
est in  all  foreign  dominions,  where  the  Protestant 
religion  was  tolerated.' 

"  He  then  goes  on  and  says :  '  That  some  years 
before  the  troubles,  when  the  power  of  the 
Churchmen  grew  more  transcendent,  and  indeed 
the  faculties  and  understanding  of  the  lay  coun- 
selors more  dull,  lazy,  and  inactive  (for  without 
the  last  the  first  could  have  done  no  hurt),  the 
Church  grew  jealous  that  the  countenancing  of 
another  discipline  here  by  order  of  the  State  would 
at  least  diminish  the  reputation  and  dignity  of 
the  Episcopal  government,  and  give  countenance 
to  the  factious  and  schismatical  party  here  to  ex- 
pect such  a  toleration.  And  therefore  the  State 
conniving,  or  not  interposing,  the  bishops  pro- 


APPENDIX  A. 


201 


ceeded  against  them ;  so  that  many  left  the  king- 
dom, to  the  lessening  the  manufacture  there  of 
kerseys  and  narrow  cloths;  and  what  was  worse, 
the  transporting  the  mystery  into  foreign  ports.' 

"  He  further  shows,  that  whereas  our  ambassa- 
dors and  foreign  ministers,  in  any  part  where  the 
Reformed  religion  was  exercised,  frequented  their 
churches,  gave  all  possible  countenance  to  their 
profession  ;  and  particularly  the  ambassador  at 
Paris  had  constantly  frequented  the  Church  at 
Charenton,  whereby  he  kept  up  necessary  corre- 
spondence with  the  most  active  and  powerful  per- 
sons of  that  persuasion,  to  the  great  benefit  of 
this  kingdom,  by  being  let  into  their  secrets  of 
state,  and  deriving  all  necessary  intelligence  from 
them  ;  the  contrary  to  all  this  was  then  practiced, 
and  some  advertisements,  if  not  instructions, 
given  to  the  ambassadors  there,  to  forbear  any 
extraordinary  commerce  with  men  of  that  pro- 
fession; and  the  Lord  Scudamore,  then  ambassa- 
dor, not  only  declined  going  to  Charenton,  but 
furnished  his  own  chapel  with  such  ornaments 
(to  wit,  candles  on  the  communion  table,  and  the 
like)  as  gave  great  offense  and  umbrage  to  those 
of  the  Reformation  there  who  had  not  seen  the 
like;  besides,  he  was  careful  to  publish  that  the 
Church  of  England  looked  not  on  the  Huguenots 
as  part  of  th(?ir  communion,  which,  my  Lord  Clar- 
endon says,  was  too  much  and  too  industriously 
discoursed  at  home."  (p.  337). 


202 


APPENDIX  A. 


"  And  this  favorite  author  of  High  Church, 
through  the  whole  course  of  his  history,  cannot 
forbear  owning,  that  almost  the  whole  body  of 
tjhe  people,  as  well  as  the  inferior  clergy,  w^ere 
scandalized  and  offended  at  the  behavior  of  the 
bishops  and  their  followers,  which  was  then 
thought  to  have  a  tendency  to  Popery,  especially 
the  worse  part  of  it,  —  the  dominion  and  tyranny 
of  the  clergy  ;  and  it  was  this  which  drew  so 
many  petitions  and  remonstrances  from  several 
Parliaments,  both  in  England  and  Scotland,  all 
aloud  complaining  that  Popery  was  fomented  and 
encouraged,  and  the  Protestants  persecuted  and 
oppressed,  by  those  very  laws  designed  against 
the  Papists ;  nor  was  this  the  opinion  only  of  the 
people  at  home,  but  of  the  Protestant  churches 
abroad,  who  all  took  part  against  the  king  on  that 
account.  And  my  Lord  Clarendon,  notwithstand- 
ing all  his  palliating,  is  forced  to  own  that  the 
bishops,  by  this  extraordinary  conduct  of  perse- 
cuting the  Protestant  churches  at  home,  and  by 
separating  from  the  foreign  churches  abroad,  did 
it  with  a  design,  if  not  to  unite  with  the  common 
adversary,  yet  to  show  their  good  inclinations. 
And  those  ridiculous  innovations,  brought  into 
the  Church  by  Laud,  could  have  no  other  end 
than  to  make  our  separation  greater  from  other 
Protestants,  and  to  bring  us  to  a  nearer  conform- 
ity to  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  the  people  not 
enduring  those  innovations,  it  put  a  stop  to  fur- 
ther attempts  of  that  kind." 


APPENDIX  A. 


203 


Elsewhere  he  writes :  "  Our  first  Reformers 
were  as  Low  for  church,  as  they  were  High  for 
religion.  And  as  they  owned  ail  for  their  brethren 
who  separated  from  the  errors  of  Popery,  how- 
muchsoever  they  differed  from  them  in  forms  of 
ecclesiastical  government ;  so  they  did  what  was 
possible  to  root  all  claim  in  the  clergy  to  an 
independent  power.  .  .  .  'T  was  by  virtue  of 
this  communion  of  saints  which  obtained  among 
the  Reformers,  that  they  so  justly  censured  the 
uncharitableness  of  the  Papists.  But  are  the 
Highflyers,  who  confine  the  Church  of  Christ  to  a 
smaller  number,  and  are  so  far  from  communicat- 
ing with  other  Reformed  churches  either  at  home 
or  abroad,  that  they  claim  those  who  do  so  as 
schismatics  and  heretics,  more  charitable  ?  Is  not 
this  acting  in  defiance  of  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
which  requires  communion  of  saints  ;  except  they 
suppose  the  Catholic  Church  in  so  deplorable  a 
condition,  as  that  there  are  no  saints  except 
among  themselves?" 

With  reference  to  Cranrner,  this  author  writes, 
on  p.  178  :  "  That  great  Reformer  and  glorious 
martyr.  Archbishop  Cranmer  (at  a  consult  of  the 
most  eminent  divines  of  the  nation,  in  1540, 
where, to  avoid  the  inconvenience  of  verbal  dis- 
putes, they  gave  their  opinions  in  writing),  affirms: 
'  That  the  ceremonies  and  solemnities  used  in 
admitting  bishops  and  priests,  are  not  of  neces- 
sity, but  only  for  good  order  and  seeming  fashion, 


204 


APjPENbtX  A. 


and  that  there  is  no  more  promise  of  God  that 
grace  is  given  in  committing  of  the  ecclesiastical 
than  civil  office.  He  that  is  appointed  to  be  a 
bishop  or  a  priest  (between  whom,  he  says,  there 
was  at  first  no  distinction),  needs  no  consecration 
by  the  Scripture,  for  election  or  appointing  there- 
unto is  sufficient.'" 

There  is  no  proof  that  Cranmer  ever  changed 
his  mind  on  this  subject.  We  have  shown  it  was 
the  view  of  the  Alexandrian  Church,  as  it  was, 
most  probably,  of  all  the  Primitive  churches. 

On  p.  349,  we  have  this  interesting  statement  : 
"  It  was  thought  so  little  a  crime  for  laymen  to 
preach  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  that,  as  Dr. 
Langham  and  Mr.  Fuller  report,  the  High  Sheriff 
of  Oxford,  Mr.  Tavernour,  with  his  gold  chain 
about  his  neck,  and  his  sword  by  his  side, 
preached  before  the  University  of  Oxford  in  St. 
Mary's  ;  and  that  he  did,  not  out  of  ostentation, 
but  of  charity  to  the  scholars.  So  that  the  Uni- 
versity have  as  little  reason  as  the  Presbyterians  to 
preach  up  the  necessity  of  being  united  to  a 
bishop ;  and  they  are,  though  they  rail  at  the 
thing,  at  the  best  but  occasional  conformists 
when  they  communicated  with  churches  subject 
to  bishops.  And  nothing  can  better  show  the 
sense  of  the  clergy  in  former  times  as  to  these 
points,  than  modeling  the  University  after  this 
manner." 


APPENDIX  A. 


205 


This  volume  shows  clearly  how  the  same  con- 
troversies are  reproduced  in  after  ages,  and  that 
the  weakness  of  human  nature  makes  true  the 
old  adage,  that,"  Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of 
religious  and  civil  liberty." 

The  work  here  quoted,  at  first  published 
anonymously,  was  afterwards  known  to  be 
written  by  Matthew  Tindal,  Fellow  of  All 
Souls'  College,  Oxford.  Tindal  declared  his 
object  in  writing,  was  "  to  defend  the  Church 
of  England  against  the  Papists,  Jacobites  and 
other  High-fliers,  and  to  promote  the  spiritual 
as  well  as  temporal  welfare  of  mankind." 

At  first  a  High  Churchman,  he  afterwards 
joined  the  Church  of  Rome,  stating,  "  that  upon 
his  High  Church  notions  a  separation  from  the 
Church  of  Rome  could  not  be  justified."  Be- 
coming enlightened  as  to  the  falsity  of  the 
claims  of  that  Church,  he  returned  to  the  Church 
of  England.  He  wrote  in  defence  of  the  Revo- 
lution of  1688,  and  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

Of  the  work  here  quoted,  Leclerc,  the 
eminent  Protestant  divine,  said  in  commenda- 
tion, "  that  it  was  one  of  the  solidest  defences 
of  Protestantism  ever  written."  Tindal,  like 
some  of  the  clergy  of  his  time,  embraced  deis- 
tical  principles  in  his  old  age.  But  his  later 
defection  cannot  afi"ect  the  learning  and  argu- 
ments of  this  remarkable  book. 


APPENDIX  B. 


CONFIRMATORY  EVIDENCE. 

Through  the  kindness  of  a  friend  who  has  re- 
cently iniported  the  book,  the  attention  of  the 
writer  has  been  directed  to  a  volume  of  singular 
interest  and  value,  entitled  "  Whose  are  the 
Fathers  ?  By  John  Harrison,  Curate  of  Pits- 
moor,  SheffieM.  London:  1867,  pp.  728."  In 
it  are  given  a  catena  of  fifty-four  Fathers  of  the 
first  six  centuries,  with  three  later  writers,  to- 
gether with  thirty-seven  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England  of  tlie  Reformation  period  and  later, 
all  more  or  less  bearing"  on  the  questions  concern- 
ing the  Church  and  ministry,  at  present  in  dis- 
pute. In  fullness  we  have  seen  nothing  equal  to 
it.  Let  our  laymen  of  worldly  means  give  this 
and  similar  works  a  wide  circulation  I 

We  make  a  few  extracts  froin  writers  not 
hitherto  quoted,  and  bearing  on  our  subject. 

On  p.  226  we  read  :  "  But  Jerome  does  give 
some  account  of  a  person  in  some  respect  superior 
to  an  ordinary  presbyter  from  the  time  of  St. 
Mark  :  '  For  at  Alexandria,' "  etc. 


APPENDIX  B. 


207 


"  Mr.  Percival  says  :  '  Observe,  the  utmost  that 
can  be  made  of  this  passage,  by  itself,  is,  that 
presbyters  at  Alexandria  had  a  voice  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  patriarch,  which,  in  other  places, 
rested  with  the  bishop  of  the  province,  and  even 
this  is  not  distinctly  stated.  Jerome  does  not  say 
the  bishop  was  chosen  by  the  presbyters,  but 
from  among  them,  nor  does  he  say  by  whom  he 
was  placed  in  the  higher  degree.' 

"  Mr.  Palmer  also  states  :  '  But  St.  Jerome  does 
not  say  that  the  bishop  thus  elected  was  not  after- 
wards consecrated  by  bishops.'  (B.  vi.  ch.  iv. 
vol.  ii.  p.  314.) 

"  Both  Percival  and  Palmer  would  fain  make  a 
fool  of  this  learned  presbyter.  For,  if  bishops 
performed  their  parts,  as  was  customary  in  the 
time  of  Jerome,  in  these  promotions  of  all  these 
Alexandrian  bishops,  where  could  have  been  the 
relevancy  of  his  referring  to  them  ?  Let  the 
whole  of  the  Epistle  of  Jerome  to  Evagrius  be 
well  considered  as  given  above,  and  the  reader 
will  be  quite  certain  that  the  promotion  of  the 
Alexandrian  bishop,  whatever  it  was,  came  from 
the  presbyters,  and  that  bishops,  such  as  existed 
in  the  time  of  Jerome,  had  no  part  in  it.  This 
is  strongly  confirmed  both  by  Amalarius  and 
Eutychius. 

"  Nothing  can  be  plainer  from  the  context  than 
that  Jerome  teaches  that  the  bishop  was  chosen 
by  the  presbyters,  though  he  does  not  use  the  exact 


208 


APPENDtX  6. 


words  :  '  Just  as  deacons  may  elect  one  of  them- 
selves .  .  .  and  call  him  archdeacon,'  so  did  the 
presbyters  choose  one  of  themselves,  and  name 
him  bishop.  Mr.  Palmer  so  translates  the  pas- 
sage, '  The  presbyters  always  chose  one  of  them- 
selves." 

"  Amaiarius  did  not  consider  the  presbyter  so 
promoted  to  be  a  bishop  at  all,  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  term.  Hence  he  adduced  the  case 
as  relating  to  the  consecration  of  presbyters,  and 
having  adduced  it,  remarks  :  '  The  consecration 
of  an  archdeacon  is  well  known  to  us.  An  arch- 
deacon has  the  same  con.secration  as  the  others 
have,  but  by  the  election  of  his  brethren  he  is 
placed  first.' 

"  it  is  plain  Amaiarius  understood  that  this  Al- 
exandrian presbyter,  placed  in  a  higher  rank,  and 
called  bishop,  had  no  consecration  different  from 
his  brethren." 

AMALARIUS. 

The  writer,  here  introduced  for  the  first  time, 
was  not,  according  to  Chalmers,  Amaiarius, 
Archbishop  of  Treves,  but  Amaiarius  Symphosius, 
who,  according  to  the  "  New  American  Encyclo- 
pEedia,"  flourished  in  the  eighth  century,  and  was 
a  Roman  Catholic  writer  of  great  influence  in 
France, 

Quoting  Jerome,  Amaiarius  proceeds  :  "  Let  us 
see  why  the  name  of  presbyter  passed  over  to 
that  of  bishop.    Ambrose  says,  on  the  Epistle  to 


APPENDIX  B. 


209 


.Timothy,  '  But  what  is  the  cause  ?  .  .  .  The 
blessed  Apostles  having  departed,  in  subsequent 
times,  they  who  were  ordained  after  them  to  rule 
the  churches  could  not  compare  with  those  chiefs; 
nor  had  they  the  testimony  of  miracles  equal  to 
them,  but  seemed  also  in  many  other  things  to  be 
inferior  to  them.  They  thought  it  to  be  a  weighty 
affair  to  claim  to  themselves  the  name  of  the 
Apostles,  therefore  they  divided  the  names,  and 
some  of  them  left  the  name  of  the  presbytership 
to  the  presbyters.  But  others  who  were  endued 
with  the  power  of  ordination  were  called  bishops, 
so  that  they  might  most  fully  know  that  they 
were  the  rulers  of  the  churches.' 

"  Jerome  explains,  '  What  more  has  a  bishop 
than  a  presbyter,'  saying  in  the  Epistle  to  Evag- 
rius,  often  repeated,  '  For  what  does  a  bishop 
do,  except  in  the  case  of  ordination,  which  a  pres- 
byter may  not  do  ? '  And  he  explains  by  what 
appointment  a  bishop  should  be  appointed,  in  his 
tract  upon  Titus,  saying,  '  Therefore,  as  presby- 
ters know  that  it  is  by  the  custom  of  the  Church 
that  they  are  to  be  subject  to  him  that  is  placed 
over  them,  so  let  the  bishop  know  that  they  are 
above  presbyters  rather  by  custom  than  divine 
appointment,'  etc.  .  .  . 

"According  to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  that 
is  to  say,  the  Apostle  Paul,  Ambrose  the  Arch- 
bishop, and  Jerome  the  Presbyter,  the  consecra- 
14 


210 


APPENDIX  B. 


tion  for  a  bishop  to  sacrifice  was  made  in  the 
ordination  of  a  presbyter. 

"  The  office  of  bishop  and  priest  is  almost  one." 
(«  Whose  are  the  Fathers,"  pp.  599,  600.) 

Harrison  quotes,  moreover,  the  Bishop  of  Seville, 
A.  D.  600 :  "  To  presbyters  as  well  as  to  bishops 
is  committed  the  dispensing  of  the  mysteries  of 
God  ;  they  are  set  over  the  churches  of  Christ,  and 
in  the  mingling  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
they  are  alike  with  the  bishops,  and  in  the  office 
of  preaching  to  the  people  ;  only  for  the  greater 
honor  of  the  bishop,  and  preventing  schisms,  the 
power  of  ordination  was  restricted  to  him." 

Also,  he  quotes  the  Canon  Law  :  "A  bishop  is 
the  same  as  a  presbyter,  and  by  custom  alone 
bishops  are  over  presbyters  —  as  Jerome  saith. 
.  .  .  A  bishop  should  not  regard  himself  as  a 
lord,  but  as  a  colleague  of  the  presbyters." 

The  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage,  a.  d.  398,  "  In 
whatsoever  place  the  bishop  sits,  it  is  not  allowed 
the  presbyters  to  stand.  The  bishop  may  sit  on 
a  higher  seat  in  the  church,  and  in  the  session  of 
the  presbyters ;  but  within  the  house  should  re- 
gard himself  as  a  colleague  of  the  presbyters." 

TOSTATUS. 

An  important  extract  is  given  from  the  works 
of  Tostatus,  Bishop  of  Avila  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, as  quoted  by  the  celebrated  Huguenot 
Claude,  to  show  that  this  writer  held  that  episco- 


APPENDIX  B. 


211 


pal  power  came  from  the  Church  and  not  from 
consecration  by  prelates :  "  That  it  is  the  same  in 
the  keys  of  the  Church,  that  Jesus  Christ  gave 
them  to  the  whole  Church  in  the  person  of  St. 
Peter,  and  that  it  is  the  Church  that  communicates 
them  to  the  prelates,  but  which,  notwithstanding, 
communicates  them  without  depriving  itself  of 
them  ;  so  that  the  Church  has  them  in  respect  of 
origin  and  virtue,  and  the  prelates  have  them  in 
respect  of  use;  the  Church  has  them  virtually  be- 
cause she  can  give  them  to  a  prelate  by  election, 
and  she  has  them  originally  also.  For  the  power 
of  a  prelate  does  not  take  its  origin  from  itself, 
but  from  the  Church,  by  means  of  the  election 
that  it  makes  of  him.  The  Church  that  chose 
him  gives  him  that  jurisdiction,  but  as  for  the 
Church,  it  receives  it  from  nobody  after  its  having 
once  received  it  from  Jesus  Christ.  The  Church, 
therefore,  has  the  keys  originally  and  virtually, 
and  whensoever  she  gives  them  to  a  prelate,  she 
does  not  give  them  to  him  after  the  manner  she 
has  them,  to  wit,  originally  and  virtually,  but  she 
gives  them  to  him  only  as  to  use."  (In  "  Numer." 
cap.  XV.  quest.  48,  49.) 

This  Roman  writer  takes  the  view  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Church,  that  the  authority  of  the  bishop 
comes  from  his  election,  not  the  mistaken  view  of 
many,  that  the  consecration  by  the  hands  of  other 
bishops  confers  it,  —  an  error  which  has  led  to  so 
much  division  and  evil  in  the  Church. 


212 


APPENDIX  B. 


After  a  thorough  examination  of  all  that  tuo 
Fathers  have  written  on  succession,  this  able 
writer  thus  gives  his  conclusions  :  — 

HARRISON. 

"  We  believe  that  a  moderate  Episcopacy  is 
more  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and  antiquity 
than  any  other  form  of  church  government.  Our 
own  views  on  this  point  will  be  given  in  a  dis- 
tinct chapter.  ...  It  is  true,  as  we  have  seen, 
that  the  person  who  among  his  fellow-presbyters 
was  a  pi'imvs  inter  pares,  in  process  of  time,  and 
especially  in  the  fourth  century,  became  devel- 
oped into  one  who  had  absolute  authority  over 
the  presbyters.  But  we  believe  that  the  Church, 
in  departing  so  generally,  if  not  universally  fi*om 
primitive  practice,  departed  also  from  that  which 
was  of  divine  institution."  ... 

"  At  present  it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to 
show  that  the  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession 
as  held  by  these  Anglicans,  has  no  foundation  in 
the  present  ordinal.  The  ordinal  itself  does  not 
teach  it.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  there  has  been  a 
succession  of  bishops,  and  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons, and  laity,  from  the  tinie  that  some  apostle 
or  apostolic  man  laid  the  foundation  of  a  Chris- 
tian Church  in  this  country.  But  this  is  not 
what  these  Anglicans  mean  by  succession. 
There  had  been  in  these  realms,  from  a  very  re- 


APPENDIX  B. 


213 


mote  period,  a  succession  of  kings,  with  more  or 
less  interruption.  But  this  is  not  the  kind  of  suc- 
cession held  by  thej^e  Anglicans.  For  this,  in  the 
strictest  sense,  is  hereditary  ;  whereas  in  the  suc- 
cession of  bishops,  there  is  no  hereditary  title  to 
the  office  ;  for  the  series  of  bishops  has  not  fol- 
lowed the  line  of  any  family  or  class  of  Christians, 
but  has  been  taken  indiscriminately  from  the 
mass.  If  then  none  of  these  senses  can  be  at- 
tributed to  this  Anglican  succession,  what  does  it 
really  mean  ?  As  far  as  its  meaning  can  be  ob- 
tained from  the  mists  of  confusion  and  the  mazes 
of  sophistry,  it  denotes  an  unbroken  continuation 
of  the  commission  first  given  to  the  Apostles, 
accompanied  with  a  certain  exclusive  spiritual 
aptitude  contained  in  the  transferred  commission 
to  discharge  the  office  of  an  apostle,  in  modern 
times  called  a  bishop  ;  and  this  aptitude,  or  spirit- 
ual qualification,  is  supposed  to  be  transmitted 
in  unbroken  continuity  from  one  bishop  to  another, 
through  the  channel  of  a  form  called  ordination. 
It  will  be  found  that  the  Fathers,  though  they 
occasionally  use  the  terms  equivalent  to  '  succes- 
sion '  and  '  successors,'  have  not  given  the  re- 
motest hint  that  by  these  terms  they  mean  what 
these  Anglicans  mean  by  them.  .  .  . 

"These  Fathers  (Tertullian  and  Epiphanius) 
did  not  place  the  validity  of  the  Christian  ministry 
upon  the  supposed  uninterrupted  succession  of 
any  class  of  men  from  the  Apostles,  which,  in 


214 


APPENDE  B. 


I 


fact,  is  a  fanciful  and  comparatively  modern 
notion,  and  was  unknown  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
first  six  centuries.  .  .  .  The  succession  they 
appealed  to  in  the  apostolic  churches,  was  not  a 
succession  of  men  deriving  a  commission  from  the 
Apostles  through  an  unbroken  line  of  ordainers, 
but  a  succession  of  pastors,  each  one  entering 
into  the  vacated  charge  of  his  predecessor,  and  all 
maintaining  the  Christian  doctrine  ;  and  this  fact 
of  succession  they  used  as  an  argument  against 
the  novel  opinions  of  the  heretics  of  their  time. 

"  But  certain  Anglo-Catholics  lay  the  whole 
stress  upon  a  succession  of  men  receiving  a  com- 
mission from  the  Apostles  in  an  unbroken  line, 
and  suppose  an  indelible  character  fixed  upon 
them,  which  neither  heresy  in  doctrine,  idolatry  in 
worship,  immorality  in  life,  nor  schism  in  prac- 
tice, can  efface.  The  Fathers,  and  Irenaeus  in 
particular,  did  not  consider  even  their  own  kind 
of  succession  as  a  necessary  mark  of  a  true  or 
Catholic  Church  ;  they  rather  urged  it  as  an  argu- 
ment of  the  truth  of  their  doctrine." 

THK  VIA  MEDIA. 

Speaking  of  the  exclusive  successionists,  Har- 
rison forcibly  remarks :  "  By  a  favorite  expression 
they  define  their  position  to  be  via  media,  that 
is,  midway  between  Lambeth  and  the  Vatican, 
Canterbury  and  Rome.  The  fact  is,  they  want 
to  be  at  Rorae  without  leaving  Canterbury.  The 


APPENDIX  B. 


215 


golden  cords  that  bind  some  of  them  to  the  latter 
place,  are  five  thousand  five  hundred  fold  strong, 
as  well  as  other  ties  equally  binding  on  the  less 
ethereal  part  of  human  nature.  To  adopt,  then, 
the  Romish  theory  of  apostolical  succession 
would  be  to  make  their  present  position  an  open 
disguise  to  their  consciences.  So  they  have 
adopted  their  via  media,  or  via  sua  theory  of  suc- 
cession, by  which  the  more  substantial  part  of 
their  nature  can  be  at  Canterbury  and  their  souls 
at  Rome.  ...  In  fact,  they  are  a  via  media  off- 
spring of  two  opposing  qualities,  like  their  father, 
Archbishop  Laud.  But  what  is  most  marvelous 
is,  that  these  hybrids  should  increase,  and  instead 
of  becoming  less  incongruous  to  the  mixture 
of  their  natures,  should  become  more  so.  But  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  speaking  of 
what  is  moral  and  not  what  is  physical,  and  that 
there  is  no  accounting  for  the  freaks  of  the 
human  mind  when  it  once  becomes  unhinged. 
As  good  Bishop  Hall  addressed  Laud,  their 
father,  so  we,  in  the  same  words,  address  his  still 
more  degenerate  offspring  :  — 

"  '  I  would  I  knew  where  to  find  you  ;  then  I 
could  tell  how  to  take  a  direct  aim ;  whereas  now 
I  must  rove  and  conjecture.  To-day  you  are  in 
the  tents  of  the  Romanists ;  to-morrow,  in  ours ; 
the  next  day,  between  both,  against  both.  Our 
adversaries  think  you  ours ;  we,  theirs  ;  your  con- 
science finds  you  with  both  and  neither,  .  ,  , 


216 


APPENDIX  B. 


Cast  off  either  your  wings  or  your  teeth  ;  cloth- 
ing this  bat-like  nature,  be  either  a  bird  or  a 
beast.  .  .  .  God  cryeth  with  Jehu,  "  Who  is  on 
my  side,  who  ?  "  Look  at  last  out  at  your  window 
to  Him,  and  in  a  resolute  courage,  cast  down  this 
Jezebel  that  hath  bewitched  you.'  " 

We  earnestly  commend  this  book  to  all  who 
desire  a  thorough  exposure  of  the  sophistries  by 
which  Pusey,  Palmer,  Percival,  Hook,  Sewell, 
Wordsworth,  Keble,  the  Bishops  of  Exeter  and 
Oxford,  have  poisoned  and  perverted  the  minds 
of  the  clergy  of  our  Church.  Here  will  be  found 
all  the  patristic  authorities,  and  a  complete  answer 
to  this  whole  scheme  of  diluted  and  modified 
Popery,  which  has  slidden  off  the  base  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, and  is  surely  approaching  the  slough 
out  of  which  our  martyred  Reformers  dragged 
and  purged  it.  May  God  give  us  the  spirit,  and 
preserve  to  us  the  principles  of  those  heroes  and 
saints  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy. 


APPENDIX  C. 


FURTHER  LAY  TESTIMONY. 

We  have  met  with  a  work  of  such  value  by  a 
layman  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  we  can- 
not forbear  to  present  a  few  extracts  from  it. 
This  work  is  for  the  laity,  for  on  them,  we  think, 
as  Bishop  Griswold  often  remarked,  now  rests,  as 
far  as  man  is  concerned,  the  only  hope  for  our 
Church.  This  volume  is  entitled,  "  Essays  on 
the  Church.  By  a  Layman,  pp.  486.  Seelcy  & 
Burnside,  London,  1840."  The  dangers  which 
threaten  our  Church  from  the  Sacramentarian  and 
Traditionary  party  are  here  calmly  and  thoroughly 
considered. 

The  writer  says  :  "  Most  entirely  and  unreserv- 
edly, then,  may  we  assent  to  the  decisions  and 
practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government. 
But  with  equal  satisfaction  may  we  accompany 
her  in  her  cautious  abstihenco  from  dogmatism, 
as  well  as  in  her  simple  following  of  the  footsteps^ 
of  tji^  Appstft^f!, 


218 


APPENDIX  C. 


"  Using  her  own  liberty  with  the  greatest  dis- 
cretion, she  was  not  inclined  to  refuse  the  same 
freedom  to  other  churches,  or  to  prescribe  rules  of 
Christian  communion  of  a  stricter  kind  than  those 
set  forth  in  Holy  Writ.  And  therefore  it  is  that, 
while  she  adopts  and  prefers  the  episcopal  form 
herself, — 

"  II.  She  carefully  abstains  from  making  Episco- 
vacy  an  indispensable  requisite  in  a  Christian 
Church. 

"  Her  cautious  abstinence  on  this  point  cannot 
be  ascribed  to  inadvertence,  or  the  absence  of  oc- 
casion. When  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England  were  drawn  up,  discussed,  and  finally 
settled,  the  question  of  Episcopacy  was  one  of  the 
most  prominent  topics  of  discussion  among  theo- 
logians. In  the  neighboring  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land, and  in  several  of  the  Protestant  churches 
of  the  Continent,  the  government  by  bishops  had 
been  discontinued.  The  English  Church  adopted 
a  different  course,  and  adhered  to  that  form  of 
Church  order.  In  forming  her  articles,  or  confes- 
sion of  faith,  the  question  must  needs  have  oc- 
curred, '  Whether  Episcopacy  was  to  be  regarded 
as  essential,  and  therefore  to  be  included  in  that 
formulary;  or  as  merely  expedient,  and  therefore 
passed  over  in  silence  ? '  This  question,  we  know, 
did  occur,  was  brought  under  the  consideration  of 
the  framers  of  our  Confession,  and  was  decided 
according  to  the  latter  of  these  two  views.  We 


APPENDIX  C. 


219 


learn  from  Bishop  Burnet,  that  in  framing  the 
23d  Article,  which  describes  those  ministers  to  be 
'  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and 
called  to  this  work '  —  7iot  by  bishops  of  the  apos- 
tolic succession^  but  by  men  who  have  public  au- 
thority given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to 
call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard. 
We  learn  from  Bishop  Burnet  that  '  those  who 
drew  it  had  the  state  of  the  several  churches  before 
their  eyes,  that  had  been  differently  reformed '  from 
our  own.  He  adds,  '  The  general  words  in  which 
this  part  of  the  article  is  framed  seem  to  have 
been  designed  on  purpose  not  to  exclude  them.' 
And  herein  we  can  unreservedly  approve  the  judg- 
ment of  our  Reformers,  inasmuch  as  it  exactly 
coincides  with  that  of  Holy  Writ.  The  Church 
leaves  the  question  precisely  where  the  Bible 
leaves  it. 

"  This  moderate  and  cautious  view  of  the  ques- 
tion, however,  is  not  at  all  palatable  to  the  modern 
race  of  High  Churchmen.  With  them.  Episco- 
pacy is  nothing  less  than  a  divine  law,  a  positive 
and  distinctly  enunciated  institution  of  Christ; 
an  institution,  too,  of  universal  obligation,  under 
all  possible  variety  of  circumstances ;  and,  in  fact, 
an  indispensable  condition,  an  essential  point,  in 
the  very  being  of  a  Christian  Church.  And,  oi' 
course,  if  it  be  of  this  rank,  it  follows  that  diso- 
bedience to  it  is  not  only  criminal,  but  highly 
dangerous," 


220 


APPENDIX  C. 


After  quoting  from  Dr.  Pusey's  writings  his 
opinion,  that  none  but  an  Episcopal  minister  could 
administer  the  communion,  and  that,  —  "refer- 
ring to  '  non-episcopal  societies,'  —  as  there  is 
hope  for  the  unconverted  heathen,  there  may  be 
also  a  similar  hope  for  the  Presbyterians  and  Lu- 
therans," this  author  proceeds  to  give  the  lan- 
guage of  the  best  divines  of  the  English  Church, 
in  which  is  presented  the  moderate  view  of  the 
23d  Article. 

Among  others,  he  quotes  Dean  Field,  Archbish- 
ops Wliitgift,  Parker,  Grindal,  Cranmer,  Usher, 
Wake,  Synge,  Seeker,  and  Howley  ;  also  Bishops 
Hall,  Andrewes,  Tomline,  and  Bloomfield,  with 
Hooker  and  Bacon.  "  And  thus,"  he  says,  "from 
Cranmer  down  to  the  present  hour,  we  find  one 
unbroken  line  of  witnesses  to  the  fact,  and  of 
supporters  of  the  principle,  that  the  Church  of 
England,  to  use  Mr.  Keble's  own  words,  '  thinks 
it  enough  to  assert  that  the  government  of  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  is  ancient  and  allowable, 
without  attempting  to  assert  its  exclusive  claim, 
or  to  connect  the  succession  with  the  validity  of 
the  sacraments.' " 

Our  author  proceeds  :  "  And  this  is  the  wisest, 
because  the  safest,  ground  to  take.  The  moment 
stricter  and  more  lofty  pretensions  are  urged,  dif- 
ficulties and  questions  begin  to  open  upon  us. 
Human  nature,  indeed,  blind  to  its  own  innate 
and  irremovable  imperfection,  is  yer^  fond  pf 


APPENDIX  C. 


221 


seeking  that  unattainable  possession,  a  perfect 
human  institution.  When  the  circle  has  been 
squared,  when  the  atmosphere  has  been  brought 
under  rule,  when  the  musical  scale  shall  be  per- 
fected, then  may  we  begin  to  dream  of  a  human 
society  of  faultless  symmetry.  Meanwhile  let  us 
be  sure  that  the  admission  of  a  Judas  among  the 
Apostles  of  our  all-seeing  Lord,  and  of  a  Demas 
among  the  fellow-laborers  of  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles,  were  both  designed  to  yield  instruction 
to  future  ages.  Above  all,  let  us  remember. that 
the  only  '  laying  on  of  hands '  recorded  to  have 
been  received  by  Paul  himself,  was  that  of  a  '  cer- 
tain disciple  '  (Acts  ix.  17),  and  that  while  he  evi- 
dently places  the  preaching  of  the  Word  above 
baptism,  as  the  higher  and  more  important  func- 
tion (1  Cor.  i.  17),  we  find  it  said  that  '  they,^ 
without  any  distinction,  '  which  were  scattered 
abroad  vpon  the  persecution  that  arose  about  Ste- 
phen, travelled,  preac/iing-  the  Word^  (Acts  xi.  19). 

"  The  principle,  then,  should  be  Order  ;  the 
regulator,  a  Catholic  Spirit.  Those  who  would 
strain  matters  to  an  extremity,  and  strive  to  frame, 
out  of'  human  weakness,  folly,  and  infirmity,  a 
perfect  system,  are  merely  copying  the  builders 
of  old,  who  essayed,  out  of  Babylonish  bricks  and 
the  slime  of  Shinar,  to  build  a  tower  '  whose  top 
might  reach  unto  heaven.'  The  Allwise  rebuked 
their  overweening  pride  and  arrogant  attempt  by 
■confounding  their  language;'  and  a  like  fate 


222 


APPENDIX  C. 


attends  the  efforts  of  those  who,  in  our  own  times, 
would  rather  side  with  Boiuier  and  Gardiner,  two 
prelates  in  'the  holy  apostolic  line,'  'in  making 
havoc  of  the  Church,'  than  with  the  Presbyterian 
Knox,  in  building  up  a  spiritual  temple  of  God, 
by  the  instrumentality  of  which  '  there  were  added 
to  the  chirrch  dailj/  of  such  as  should  be  saved.'  .  .  . 

"  And  let  those  who  cannot  be  content  with  this 
general  and  catholic  view  take  care,  in  their  fur- 
ther inquiries,  to  discriminate  carefully  between 
two  things,  which  are  often  very  irrationally  inter- 
mingled, namely,  the  unbroken  succession,  and  the 
form  of  church  government. 

"  These  two  things  are  perfectly  distinct  from 
each  other,  and  yet  the  question  is  often  argued 
as  if  they  were  so  conjoined  that  the  decision  of 
either  must  decide  both.  (Here  the  clear  head 
of  this  layman  stands  out  so  strongly  in  contrast 
with  the  confused  utterances  of  extravagant  ec- 
clesiastics !)  But  the  erroneousness  of  this  sup- 
position is  seen  in  the  fact  that  many  firm  sup- 
porters of  an  unbroken  apostolic  succession  are 
also  stanch  maintainers  of  the  Presbyterian 
scheme  of  government.  They  tell  us  that  the 
Apostles  constituted  the  Christian  Church,  ordain- 
ing elders  (or  presbyters)  in  every  place,  and  that 
each  local  church  was  governed  by  these  elders  or 
presbyters.  The  existence  in  some  cases  of  an 
overseer,  or  delegate  of  an  Apostle,  as  in  the  cases 
of  Timothy  and  Titus,  they  do  not  admit  to  es- 


APPENDIX  C. 


223 


tablish  a  general  rule.  But  still,  while  they  ad- 
here to  Presbyterianism,  they  maintain,  as  firmly 
as  the  highest  Episcopalian,  the  necessity  of  a 
commission,  handed  down  in  regular  and  unbroken 
succession  from  the  Apostles,  to  enable  any  man 
lawfully  to  exercise  the  ministerial  office. 

"  The  number,  then,  of  those  who  contend  for 
the  succession  is  much  larger  than  of  those  who 
consider  that  such  succession  can  only  exist  in 
the  line  of  the  episcopacy.  And  this  was  to  be 
expected.  Every  man's  reason,  and  the  obvious 
fitness  of  things,  is  against  the  idea  that  the 
Christian  ministry  is  an  office  and  function  which 
it  is  at  any  man's  option,  at  any  moment  and  un- 
der any  circumstances,  to  confer  upon  himself. 

"  The  Church  of  England,  therefore,  in  this 
matter,  speaks  clearly  and  decidedly  :  '  It  is  not 
lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office 
of  public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments 
in  the  congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called 
and  sent  to  execute  the  same.'  (Art.  xxiii.)  But 
when  she  comes  to  define  the  term  '  lawfully 
called,'  she  is  far  less  positive.  She  says  that 
'  we  ought  to  judge  those  to  be  lawfully  called 
and  sent  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work 
by  men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto 
them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send  minis- 
ters into  the  Lord's  vineyard.'  Here  she  deliber- 
ately refuses,  —  for  there  is  no  other  view  to  be 
taken  of  it,  —  she  refuses  to  assert  that  those  only 


224 


APPENDIX  C. 


are  lawfully  commissioned  who  have  received 
episcopal  ordination.  Adopting  Episcopacy  itself, 
as  the  best  system  of  church  government,  and  as 
a  system,  the  foundation  of  which  she  can  trace 
in  the  apostolic  writings,  she  yet  refuses  to  assert 
that  it  is  only  from  episcopal  hands  that  the  com- 
mission to  preach  the  gospel  can  be  lawfully 
received. 

"  It  was  the  judgment  of  her  founders  —  perhaps 
unanimously,  but  at  all  events  generally  —  that 
the  bishop  of  the  Primitive  Church  was  merely  a 
presiding  elder,  a  presbyter  ruling  over  presbyters; 
identical  in  order  and  commission  ;  superior  only 
in  degree  and  authority.  Craiimer's  recorded 
'opinion  and  sentence'  (though  on  this,  as  well 
as  on  other  questions,  his  mind  underwent  vari- 
ous changes)  was,  '  that  bishops  and  priests  were 
not  two  things,  but  were  both  one  office  in  the  be- 
ginning of  Christ's  religion.' 

"  The  judgment  and  the  practice  of  Archbish- 
ops Parker,  Grindal,  and  Whitgift  we  have  al- 
ready noticed  ;  and  Mr.  Palmer,  as  we  have  seen, 
confesses  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  Jewel, 
Hooker,  and  Field,  '  that  a  mere  presbyter  might 
confer  every  order  except  the  episcopate ; '  in 
other  words,  that  the  apostolic  svccession  of  the 
presbyters  might  be  continued  bi/  presbyters,  the 
episcopate  being  laid  aside  or  lost.  .  .  . 

"  Common  sense,  if  we  could  banish  the  school- 
men, the  councils,  and  the  system-makers,  .  .  . 


APPENDIX  C. 


225 


would  tell  us,  —  Rest  not  in  long  descent,  or  in 
indubitable  succession  from  the  Apostles,  or  in 
general  concurrence  with  the  whole  body  of  Chris- 
tians, or  in  any  other  external  marks!  Christ 
founded  a  Church  ;  He  commissioned  a  body  of 
preachers  of  His  gospel,  and  He  left  them  a  few 
plain  and  simple  rules.  Try  every  church,  then, 
that  professes  to  be  following  His  injunctions,  by 
the  record  and  injunction  He  has  left :  To  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  accord- 
ing to  this  wo7-d,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in 
them.'' 

"  And  such  is  the  course  distinctly  pointed  out 
in  Scripture.  Not  a  syllable  is  there  to  tell  us 
that  a  divine  commission,  regularly  transmitted  in 
strict  succession,  or  an  external  unity  of  profes- 
sion, is  to  be  our  guide  in  reposing  our  confidence 
in  a  priesthood  or  a  church.  Nothing  could  be 
clearer  than  the  divine  institution  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament priesthood  ;  and  yet,  how  many  threaten- 
ings  and  reproaches  does  God  Himself  direct 
against  these,  his  commissioned  ministers!" 

Then,  quoting  largely  from  the  Scriptures  of 
both  covenants,  our  author  proceeds :  "  Many 
other  passages  might  be  adduced,  if  space  per- 
mitted, to  show  that  the  grand  point  pressed  by 
all  the  Apostles  was,  continuance  in  sound  doctrine. 
This  was  with  them  the  chief  note  or  mark  of  a 
true  or  faithful  church.  .  .  . 

"The  one  question,  then,  in  the  Scriptures, 

15 


•226 


APPENDIX  C. 


touching  any  church,  is,  Is  it  faithful  ?  —  faithful 
to  the  duclrine  intrusted  to  its  care  ?  Is  the  gos- 
pel preached  the  same  gospel  which  the  Apostles 
declared,  or  is  it  '  another  gospel,'  against  which 
St.  Paul  fulminated  his  anathemas  ?  This  is  the 
chief  and  almost  the  only  point  suggested  in 
Holy  Writ  as  the  mark  or  note  of  a  true 
church." 

Our  author  sustains  his  view  by  quoting  the 
two  Reformers  of  greatest  influence,  Bishops  Rid- 
ley and  Jewel.  We  leave  him  here,  with  the 
remark  that  his  work  will  repay  the  most  careful 
perusal  of  any  one  who  would  read  a  thorough 
examination  and  exposure  of  the  errors  which 
now  are  spreading  through  our  Church. 

Bishop  Ridley,  in  his  second  conference,  quotes 
Chrysostom  to  this  effect:  'In  times  past,  there 
were  many  ways  to  know  the  Church  of  Christ, 
that  is  to  say,  by  good  life,  by  miracles,  by  char- 
ity, by  doctrine,  by  ministering  the  sacraments. 
But  from  the  time  that  heresies  took  hold  of  the 
churches,  it  is  only  known  by  the  Scriptures  which 
is  the  true  Church.  They  have  all  things  in  out- 
ward show,  which  the  true  Church  hath  in  truth. 
They  have  temples  like  unto  ours,'  etc.,  etc., 
wherefore  only  by  the  Scriptures  do  we  know 
which  is  the  true  Church.' 

"  Bishop  Jewel  says  :  '  Our  Lord,  knowing  that 
there  should  be  i?uch  confusion  of  things  in  the 
latter  days,  commandeth  that  Christians,  who  live 


APfENDIX  C. 


227 


in  the  profession  of  Christian  faith,  and  are  de- 
sirous to  settle  thenaselves  upon  a  sure  ground  of 
faith,  should  go  to  no  other  thing  but  the  Scrip- 
tures.^ '  But  whereas  they  (the  Papists)  mai\e 
the  Holy  Scriptures  like  silent  masses,  dumb  and 
useless ;  and  appeal  rather  to  God  Himself,  speak- 
ing in  the  Church  and  in  councils,  that  is,  to  their 
own  senses  and  opinions  ;  that  is  a  very  uncertain 
and  dangerous  way  of  finding  out  truth,  and  in  a 
sort  fanatical.^  "  ("  Essays  on  the  Church,"  pp. 
227-51,  151-52.) 

DR.  IRA  WARREN. 

We  turn  now  to  the  testimony  of  an  American 
layman,  who  has  written  a  work  of  great  research 
and  value,  entitled,  "  The  Causes  and  Cure  of 
Puseyisni.   By  Ira  Warren.    Boston,  1847." 

On  p.  258  he  writes  :  "  My  conviction  is  that  . 
government,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  is  of  divine 
appointment ;  but  that  its  particular  form,  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other,  has  not  been  made  the 
subject  of  any  positive  divine  enactment,  but  has 
been  left  to  the  molding,  under  Divine  Provi- 
dence, of  times  and  circumstances,  in  accordance 
with  the  wants  of  the  race  in  its  various  moral 
and  physical  conditions. 

"  I  believe,  therefore,  that  the  preface  of  the 
Prayer  Book  is  right  in  referring  to  discipline  all 
things  not  clearly  included  under  the  term  '  doc- 
trine,' and  in  declaring  that,  without  exception, 


228 


APPENDIX  C. 


they  are  —  Episcopacy  and  the  form  of  church 
government  of  course  included  —  alterable  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  Church.  I  have  never  seen  the 
fact  that  our  Church  takes  this  ground  before 
slated;  but  here  it  is  in  the  Prayer  Book.  It 
cannot  be  evaded. 

"  The  exclusive  views  growing  out  of  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy  have  no  support,  then,  either 
in  the  Bible  or  in  the  Prayer  Book.  No  real 
progress  can  be  made  towards  the  cure  of  Pusey- 
ism,  until  evangelical  men  shall  have  discarded 
from  their  minds  every  vestige  of  the  divine  right 
of  Episcopacy. 

"  Moreover,  if  we  would  get  rid  of  our  tracta- 
rian  tendencies,  we  must  cultivate  Christian  union. 
We  must  abandon  all  our  lofty  notions,  and  step 
right  upon  the  platform  of  Christian  brotherhood, 
taking  every  Christian  man  by  the  hand  as  a 
brother  and  an  equal,  and,  according  to  the  true 
gospel  rule,  esteeming  others  better  than  ourselves. 
The  spirit  of  the  age  demands  this  of  us.  With- 
out it  we  shall,  in  the  great  race  of  love  and  char- 
ity, on  which  the  Protestant  Church  is  entering  so 
earnestly,  be  left  far  in  the  rear.  Onr  own  life  as 
a  denomination  demands  it  of  us.  Without  it, 
we  shall  be  thrown  practically,  in  spite  of  us,  into 
the  society  and  fellowship  of  the  apostate  Church 
of  Rome.  Our  loyalty  to  Christ  requires  it  of  us. 
Without  it,  our  position  will  more  and  more  be 
found,  of  necessity,  to  be  one  of  antagonism  to 
Him  and  His  cause." 


In  his  preface  (page  12),  this  author  writes  : 
Having  studied,  to  some  extent,  the  history,  doc- 
trines, formularies,  and  usages  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  I  find  there  are  many  things  which,  in 
my  humble  opinion,  ought  to  be  reformed  or 
given  up,  but  which  are  growing  worse  and  worse, 
with  no  prospect  of  amendment,  unless  those  in 
high  places  can  be  reached  with  reproofs  which 
we  have  all  hitherto  failed  to  apply,  either  for 
want  of  courage  or  lack  of  the  means  of  doing 
so.  ,  .  . 

"  My  aim,  therefore,  in  the  following  pages,  is 
to  reach  the  laity,  and  to  press  upon  their  atten- 
tion a  succession  of  topics,  which,  by  great  effort, 
and  to  the  manifest  injury  of  our  denomination, 
have  been  kept  out  of  view.  No  doubt  the  theme, 
to  many  of  our  people,  will  be  a  new  one,  but 
not,  I  trust,  the  less  inviting  on  that  account.  Tf 
I  am  not  mistaken,  it  will  awaken  the  more  atten- 
tion from  the  care  with  which  it  has  hitherto  been 
concealed.  At  any  rate,  my  desire  is  to  see  it 
awaken  a  general  concern  among  us  for  the  purity 
of  the  gospel.  I  would  have  an  interest  in  this 
matter  reach  all  the  borders  of  our  denomination, 
and  the  General  Convention  made  to  feel  so 
heavy  a  pressure  of  public  sentiment  from  with- 
out, and  so  imperative  a  prompting  from  within, 
as  to  be  willing  to  take  the  matter  in  hand,  and 
revise  the  Liturgi/,  waking'  it  thoroughly  Protest- 
ant. .  .  . 


230 


APPENDIX  C. 


"  Bishop  Griswold,  the  wisest  man  our  Church 
in  this  country  has  ever  had,  and  who  was  better 
acquainted  than  any  other  man  with  the  condi- 
tion and  prospects  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in 
New  England, thus  speaks  in  his  Address  delivered 
before  the  Convention  of  the  Eastern  Diocese 
in  1837  :  '  The  prejudice  in  these  Eastern  States 
against  forms  of  prayer,  and  the  objections  so  gen- 
erally made  to  some  parts  of  ours  particularly ,  and 
to  the  length  of  our  morning  service,  are  powerful 
obstacles  to  our  increase.  .  .  .  When  there  shall 
have  been  a  judicious  revision  of  our  Liturgy,  in 
the  manner  wisely  recommended  by  our  venera- 
ble brother,  Bishop  White,  deceased.  I  doubt  not 
but  our  churches  will  more  rapidly  increase.' 

"  To  these  testimonies  of  our  first  two  presiding 
bishops,  we  may  add  the  emphatic  words  of  a 
kindred  spirit,  the  late  Archbishop  Sumner:  'Let 
me  remove  twenty  v^'ords  from  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  in  one  day  I  will  reunite  to  the  Church 
twenty  thousand  dissenters.' " 

On  this  point,  our  author  quotes  on  his  title-page 
the  strong  language  of  another  eminent  Episcopal 
layman,  Isaac  Taylor  :  "  How  little  did  the  vener- 
able men  —  the  martyrs  of  the  English  Church 
—  imagine  what  they  were  doing,  and  what  a  har- 
vest for  their  country  they  were  preparing,  when, 
from  a  mistaken  anxiety  to  conciliate  the  adher- 
ents of  the  ancient  idolatry,  they  professed  their 
submission  to  the  very  authors  of  that  idolatry, 


APPENDIX  C. 


231 


and  admitted  into  the  constitution  they  fornied, 
the  roots  of  the  ancient  delusion,  and  the  germs 
of  an  after  growth  of  polytheism  !  " 

LORD  BACON. 

We  close  the  testimony  of  these  noble  lay 
brethren  with  the  words  of  the  most  distinguished 
man  of  the  age  in  which  our  Prayer  Book  was 
revised  and  settled,  one  thoroughly  familiar  with 
the  principles  upon  which  his  Church  was  based, 
and  with  the  great  men  who  reformed  it,  Lord 
Francis  Bacon. 

He  writes :  "  For  the  second  point,  that  there 
should  be  but  one  form  of  discipline  in  all 
churches,  and  that  imposed  by  necessity  of  com- 
mandment and  prescript  out  of  the  Word  of  God, 
it  is  a  matter  volumes  have  been  compiled  of,  and 
therefore  cannot  receive  a  brief  redargution.  I 
for  my  part  do  confess,  that  in  searching  the 
Scriptures  I  could  never  find  any  such  thing,  but 
that  God  hath  left  the  like  liberty  to  the  church 
government  as  he  hath  done  to  the  civil  govern- 
ment;  to  be  varied  according  to  time,  place,  and 
accident,  which  nevertheless  His  high  and  divine 
providence  doth  order  and  dispose.  ...  So  like- 
wise in  church  matters,  the  substance  of  doctrine 
is  immutable;  and  so  are  the  general  rules  of 
government;  but  for  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  for 
the  particular  hierarchies,  policies,  and  discipline 
of  churches,  they  be  left  at  large  ;  and,  therefore,  it 


282 


Appendix  c. 


is  good  we  return  to  the  ancient  bonnds  of  unity 
in  the  Church  of  God,  which  was  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  and  not  one  hierarchy,  one  discipline." 

Speaking  of  the  party  which,  when  he  wrote 
(1G09),  under  Bancroft,  Andrewes,  and  Laud,  were 
gradually  advancing  more  extreme  views,  Bacon 
continues:  "  The  other  part,  which  maintaineth  the 
present  government  of  the  Church,  hath  not  kept 
one  tenor  neither.  First,  those  ceremonies  which 
were  pretended  to  be  corrupt,  they  maintained  to 
be  things  indifferent,  and  opposed  the  examples 
of  the  good  times  of  the  Church  to  that  challenge 
which  was  made  unto  them,  because  they  were 
used  in  the  later  superstitious  times.  Then  they 
were  also  content  mildly  to  acknowledge  many 
imperfections  in  the  Church,  as  tares  come  up 
amongst  the  corn  ;  which  yet,  according  to  the 
wisdom  taught  by  our  Saviour,  were  not  with 
strife  to  be  pulled  up,  lest  it  might  spoil  and  sup- 
plant the  good  corn,  but  to  grow  on  together  till 
the  harvest. 

"  After,  they  grow  to  a  more  absolute  defence 
and  maintenance  of  all  the  orders  of  the  Church, 
and  stiffly  to  hold  that  nothing  was  to  be  inno- 
vated, partly  because  it  would  make  a  breach 
upon  the  rest.  Hence,  exasperated  through  con- 
tentions, they  are  fallen  to  a  direct  condemnation 
of  the  contrary  part,  as  of  a  sect.  Yea,  and  some 
indiscreet  persons  have  been  bold,  in  open  preach- 
ing, to  use  dishonorable  and  derogatory  speech 


APPENDIX  C. 


233 


and  censure  of  the  churches  abroad  ;  and  that  so 
far,  as  some  of  our  men,  as  1  have  lieard,  ordained 
in  foreign  parts,  have  been  pronounced  to  be  un- 
lawful ministers.  Thus  we  see  the  beginnings 
were  modest,  but  the  extremes  are  violent,  so 
a.s  there  is  almost  as  great  a  distance  now  of 
either  side  from  itself,  as  was  at  first  the  one  from 
the  other.  .  .  . 

"  To  my  lords  the  bishops  T  say,  that  it  is  hard 
for  them  to  avoid  blame  in  the  opinion  of  an 
indifferent  person,  in  standing  so  precisely  upon 
altering  nothing.  Laws,  not  refreshed  with  new 
laws,  wax  sour.  Without  a  change  of  ill,  a  man 
cannot  continue  the  good.  To  take  away  many 
abuses  supplanteth  not  good  orders,  but  estab- 
lisheth  them.  A  contentious  retaining  of  custom 
is  a  turbulent  thing  as  well  as  innovation.  A 
good  husbandman  is  ever  pruning  in  his  vineyard 
or  in  his  field  —  not  unseasonably  indeed,  not  un- 
skilfully, but  lightly  ;  he  findeth  ever  somewhat 
to  do.  .  .  . 

"  But  if  it  be  said  to  me,  that  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  civil  causes  and  ecclesiastical,  they 
may  as  well  tell  me  that  churches  and  chapels 
need  no  reparations,  though  castles  and  houses 
do  ;  whereas,  commonly  to  speak  truth,  dilapida- 
tions of  the  inward  and  spiritual  edifications  of 
the  Church  of  God  are,  in  all  times,  as  great  as 
the  outward  and  material.  Sure  T  am,  that  the 
very  word  and  style  of  reformation  used  by  our 


234 


APPENDIX  C. 


Saviour,  Ab  initio  non  fuit  sic,  was  applied  to 
church  matters,  and  those  of  the  highest  nature, 
concerning  the  law  moral."  ("  Considerations  con- 
cerning the  better  Pacification  and  Edification 
of  the  Church  of  England."  By  Francis,  Lord 
Bacon.) 

How  remarkably  is  the  history  of  the  Church 
of  England  reproduced  in  our  own  day  !  May 
we  have  grace  to  see  it,  and  profit  by  the  experi- 
ence of  the  past! 

We  venture  the  assertion  that  there  is  more 
scriptural  truth,  sound  philosophy,  and  true 
churchmanship,  as  to  the  point  in  question,  in  the 
words  of  these  five  learned  and  judicious  laymen 
we  have  given  —  Garrat,  Bowdler,  Warren,  Bacon, 
and  the  author  of  the  Essays  —  than  in  all  the  vol- 
umes written  by  the  Tractarians,  Ritualists,  and 
their  followers,  English  and  American,  for  the  last 
generation. 


O  Almighty  God,  who  hast  built  Thy  Church 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  head  corner-stone  ; 
grant  us  so  to  be  joined  together  in  unity  of  Spirit 
by  their  doctrine,  that  we  may  be  made  a  holy 
temple  acceptable  unto  Thee,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  Amen.  —  Collect  for  St.  Simon 
and  St.  Jttde's  Day. 


THE  TRUE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE: 

THE  PRIMITIVE  EIRENICON. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  EVIDENCE 

CONCERNING 

The  Original  Constitution 

OF  THE 

CHURCH  OF  ALEXANDRIA, 

AND 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  EPISCOPATE. 


F^TiT  XX. 


BY 

REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER. 


-BECLAKATION  OF  PRINCIPLES 

REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Adopted  December  2d,  1873. 
I. 

The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  holding  "  the  faith  once 
delivered  unto  the  saints,"  declares  its  belief  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the  VVord  of 
God,  and  the  sole  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  in  the  creed 
"commonly  called  the  Apostles'  Creed;'  in  the  Divine 
institution  of  tlie  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord".s 
Supper  ;  and  in  the  doctrines  of  grace  substantially  as  they 
are  set  forth  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion. 

II. 

This  Church  recognizes  and  adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as 
of  Divine  right,  but  as  a  very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of 
Church  polity. 

III. 

'fhis  Church,  retaining  a  Liturgy  which  shall  not  be 
imperative  or  repressive  of  freedom  in  prayer,  accepts  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  it  was  revised,  proposed  and 
recommended  for  use  by  the  General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  A.D.  1785,  reserving  full  liberty 
to  alter,  abridge,  enlarge  and  amend  the  same,  as  may  seem 
most  conductive  to  the  edification  of  the  people,  "  provided 
that  the  substance  of  the  faith  be  kept  entire." 

IV. 

This  Church  condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous 
and  strange  doctrines  as  contrary  to  God's  Word  : 

First.  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one  order 
or  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 

Second.  That  Christian  ministers  are  "priests"  in 
another  sense  than  that  in  which  all  believers  are  "  a  royal 
priesthood." 

Third.  That  the  Lord's  Table  is  an  altar  on  which  the 
oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  offered  anew  to 
the  Father. 

Fourth.  That  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
i3  a  presence  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine. 

Fifth.  That  Regeneration  is  inseparably  connected  with 
Baptism. 

(236) 


FART  IT. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  EVIDENCE. 


EXAMINATION  OF  OBJKCTIONS  BY  REV.  CHARLES 
GORE. 

This  author,  examining  Chaplain  to  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  Lincohi,  in  his  late  elaborate  work  on 
" The  Christian  Ministry,"  examines  Jerome's 
statements,  and  here  concedes  the  point,  that 
Jerome  regarded  the  office  of  bishop  as  of 
human  arrangement,  and  confirmed  his  view 
by  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 
He  thus  writes : 

The  language  of  this  statement  is  ambigu- 
ous, but  Jerome  seems  to  mean  by  later  Latin 
writers,  that  there  was  no  fresh  consecration  or 
ordination  required  in  earlier  days  at  Alex- 
andria to  make  a  presbyter  bishop,  but  that  he 
became  bishop  simply  in  virtue  of  his  election 
by  presbyters.  There  would  have  been  thus  a 
substantial  identity  between  the  two  orders. 

"  Jeromehadjof  course, residedat  Alexandria, 
ftnd  had  bad  opportunities  of  making  himself 

mi) 


238  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


acquainted  with  Alexandrian  traditions  ;  but  if 
this  is  his  meaning,  his  statement  is  wholly 
without  independent  support  in  Latin  or  Greek 
literature."  To  sustain  his  points,  he  refers  to 
Epiphanius  (a  bishop),  who  in  his  writings 
neglects  to  mention  the  Alexandrian  arrange- 
ment. He  refers  also  to  the  case  of  Colluthus, 
which  transpired  after  a  change  in  Alexandrian 
customs  ;  and  also  to  Origen,  who  lived  after  the 
change  noted,  and  who,  he  thought  it  most 
probable,  would  have  noticed  the  singularity  of 
Alexandrian  elections.  He  goes  on  to  say:  It 
requires  thus  a  great  effort  of  confidence  to 
trust  Jerome's  witness,  especially  when  we  con- 
sider that  it  is  the  witness  of  Jerome  in  a  tem- 
per, and  that  under  such  circumstances  he  is 
not  too  careful  with  his  facts  ;  but  it  has  been 
so  generally  accepted  by  western  writers  from 
the  fourth  to  the  twelfth  century,  and  by  modern 
critics,  that  it  would  be  the  better  course,  as  our 
object  is  not  merely  archaeological,  to  face  wh:it 
is  at  any  rate  the  possibility  of  its  being  true. 
 Elsewhere  there  were  two  dis- 
tinct ordinations;  one  making  a  man  a  bishop, 
and  another  a  presbyter  ;  at  Alexandria  there 
was  only  one  ordination,  which  made  a  man  a 
presbyter,  and  a  potential  bishop.  When  this 
arrangement  ceased,  aud  Alexandria  was  as- 


OBJECTIONS  OF  GORE. 


239 


similated  to  other  Churches,  and  presbyters 
began  to  be  ordained  as  mere  presbyters,"  etc. 

Gore  states  in  a  note  that  the  author  of  De 
divinis  offieiis,  and  Amalarius,  bishop  of 
Treves,  c.  A.  D.  820.  de  Eccles.  Off.  ii.  13: 
"  both  treat  this  state  of  things  at  Alexandria 

an  instance  of  a  substantial,  original  identity 
in  the  office  of  bishops  and  priests,  indicated 
by  the  same  officers  being  called  in  the  Kew 
Testament  by  either  name.  This  comes  to  them 
from  Jerome  and  Ambrosiaster  whom  they 
quote." 

Our  author  proceeds  to  criticize  Eutychius, 
whom  he  regards  as  less  informed  with  respect 
to  Alexandrian  customs  than  Severus ;  again  pre- 
sents the  omission  of  Origen  to  notice  the  Alex- 
andrian custom,  and  concludes  with  the  state- 
ment that  ati  early  work  entitled  '•  Apostolical 
Christian  Ordinances,  seems  inconsistent  with 
Eutychius'  information."  This  comprises  tlie 
sum  of  the  criticism. 

He  thus  concludes  :  "•  In  the  absence  of  any 
trustworthy  support  from  Eutychius,  there  is 
no  stror)g  case  for  accepting  Jerome's  statement 
about  the  substantial  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  in  early  days  in  Alexandria,  in  such 
sense  that  no  episcopal  ordination,  but  only 
presbyteral  appointment,  was  required  to  make 
a  presbyter  bishop.    If  there  were  many  bishops 


240  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


in  Egypt,  the  supposed  ground  for  this  excep- 
tional system  is  gone,"  pp.  137-42,  357-63. 

No  satisfactory  argument  is  here  presented 
for  disbelieving  Jerome's  clear  statement  with 
respect  to  the  presbyterian  elections  and  ordi- 
nations in  Alexandria.  The  difficulty  with 
this  writer  and  others  who  hold  with  him,  is 
that  they  endeavor  to  accommodate  the  customs 
of  the  first  two  centuries,  to  those  changes 
which  were  made  later  by  Cyprian  and  his 
school  of  High  Churchmen.  When  these  writers 
can  present  a  solitary  case  of  a  second  ordina- 
tion of  a  presbyter  in  the  first  two  centuries 
(which  has  not  been  done),  there  would  be 
some  basis  to  their  objections  to  the  custom  of 
Alexandria. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  instances  are  given  of 
men  placed  in  the  episcopate  with  no  ordina- 
tion, as  in  the  case  of  Fabianus  of  Rome,  the 
objections  otiered  to  the  confirmatory  evidence 
of  Eutychius  fall  to  the  ground.  The  idea  of 
the  episcopate  being  a  distinct  order  from  that 
of  the  presbyterate  was,  probably  not  enter- 
tained by  Christians  before  the  third  century. 
No  evidence  of  the  kind  has  reached  us.  To 
force  this  idea  upon  those  early  ages  creates 
confusion.  It  had  no  place  there.  No  exclu- 
sive episcopal  succession  was  then  known.  It 
^rew  oqt  of  eoclesiastical  pride  and  the  eub§i)f 


OBJECTIONS  OP  GORE. 


241 


quent  absorption  of  the  inherent,  Scriptural 
rights  of  the  presbyterate.  It  pioduced  the 
Papacy,  and  has  been  the  source  of  schism,  and 
innumerable  evils  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Hadden,  in  his  work  on  "Apostolical  Suc- 
cession,'* p.  122,  devotes  a  few  lines  to  the  state- 
ments of  Jerome  and  Eutychius;  and  refers  to 
some  "crushing  replies,"  in  this  connection; 
but  not  furnishing  them,  he  presents  no  argu- 
ment to  be  noticed. 

Having  given  all  that  thf  latest  objectors  to 
the  argument  for  a  primitive  and  moderate 
episcopacy  can  offer,  additional  testimony  will 
be  presented,  that  the  custom  of  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  is  fully  known  to  the  great  body  of 
the  Protestant  Church  ;  while  the  concessions 
of  several  of  the  ablest  Episcopal  authors,  in 
addition  to  those  already  ofi'ered,  to  the  same 
important  and  interesting  ecclesiastical  arrange- 
ment, will  be  appended. 

It  will  be  seen  how  futile  in  this  Age,  and  in 
this  Land,  is  the  attempt  to  extend  the  exclu- 
sive, hierarchal  system,  with  the  Sacerdotal 
and  formal  superstitions,  which  naturally  be- 
long to  it,  and  invariably  attend  it. 


242 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


TESTIMONIES  FROM  THE  METHODIST  COMMUNION. 

We  have  already  given  the  statements  of 
Powell,  an  English  writer,  and  of  Drs.  Bangs 
and  Stevens,  American  Methodists,  with  re- 
spect to  the  point  under  consideration  ;  the 
succession  through  presbyters  in  the  Primitive 
Church  of  Alexandria.  As  an  historic  Episco- 
pate has  been  kindly  offered  to  the  Methodists 
and  others,  by  a  Communion  which  repudiates- 
a  presbyterial  succession  as  invalid,  and  worth- 
less ;  it  remains  to  show  more  fully  why  this 
largest  and  most  influential  of  all  Protestant 
denominations,  has  reason  to  be  fully  satisfied 
with  their  orders,  and  how  they  will  regard  the 
offer  thus  extended  by  a  comparatively  small, 
but  highly  respectable  Denomination. 

Dr.  Abel  Stevens  refers  in  his  "Church  Pol- 
ity," p.  116,  to  the  Alexandrian  custom  as  a 
"complete  vindication  of  Mr.  Wesley's  ordina- 
tion in  the  American  Church." 

JOHN  WESLEY. 

In  the  "Lives  of  Coke,"  by  Drew  and  by 
Sutcliffe,  and  also  in  the  "  Portraiture  of  Meth- 
odism," by  Crowther,  we  have  the  following 
words  of  Wesley  to  Coke,  regarding  his  ordina- 
tion by  him  : 

"  That  as  the  Revolution  in  America  had 


JOHN  WESLEY. 


243 


separated  the  United  States  from  the  mother 
country  forever,  and  the  episcopal  establishment 
was  utterly  abolished,  the  societies  had  been 
represented  to  him  in  a  most  deplorable  condi- 
tion. That  an  appeal  had  also  been  made  to 
him  through  M).  Asbur^',  in  which  he  was  re- 
quested to  provide  for  them  some  mode  ot 
Church  government  suited  to  their  exigencies, 
and  that,  having  long  and  seriously  revolved 
the  subject  in  his  thoughts,  he  intended  to 
adopt  the  plan  which  he  was  now  about  to 
unfold. 

"That  as  he  had  invariably  endeavored,  in 
every  step  he  had  taken,  to  keep  as  close  to  the 
Bible  as  possible,  so,  on  the  present  occasion, 
he  hoped  he  was  not  about  to  deviate  from  it. 
That  keeping  his  eye  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
Primitive  Churches  in  the  ages  of  unadulter- 
ated Christianity,  he  had  much  admired  the 
mode  of  ordaining  bishops  which  the  Church 
of  Alexandria  had  practiced. 

"That  to  preserve  its  purity,  that  Church 
would  never  suffer  the  interference  of  a  foreign 
bishop  in  any  of  their  ordinations,  but  that  the 
presbyters  of  that  venerable  Apostolical  Church, 
on  the  death  of  a  bishop,  exercised  the  right 
of  ordaining  another  from  their  own  body  by 
the  laying  on  of  their  own  hands;  and  that  this 


244  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

practice  continued  among  them  for  two  hun- 
dred years  to  the  days  of  Dionysius. 

"And  finally,  that,  being  himself  a  presbyter, 
he  wished  Dr.  Coke  to  accept  ordination  at  his 
hands,  and  to  proceed,  in  that  character,  to  the 
Continent  of  America,  to  superintend  the  soci- 
eties of  the  United  States." 

As  attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that 
both  Wesley  and  Coke  had  doubts  as  to  the 
validity  of  this  ordination,  we  quote  the  lan- 
guage of  both  :  "  T  firmly  believe  that  I  am  a 
scriptural  episcopos,  as  much  as  any  man  in 
England  or  in  Europe.  For  the  uninterrupted 
succession  I  know  to  be  a  fable,  which  no  man 
ever  did,  or  can  prove."  "  I  think  he  (Bishop 
Stillingfleet)  has  unanswerably  proved  that 
neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles  prescribed  any 
[particular  form  of  Church  government,  and 
tliat  the  plea  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy 
was  never  beard  of  in  the  Primitive  Church." 
Wks.  vol.  vii.  p.  285.    See,  also,  vol.  xvi. 

Dr.  Coke  writes  to  Mr.  Wesley  thus:  "The 
more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject,  the  more 
expedient  it  appears  to  me  that  the  power  of 
ordaining  others  should  be  received  by  me  from 
you,  by  the  imposition  of  your  hands.  ...  I 
could  therefore  earnestly  wish  you  would  exer- 
cise that  power  in  that  instance,  which  I  have 
pot  the  shadow  of  a  dovibt  but  God  hath  iq- 


BISHOP  EMORT. 


245 


vested  you  with,  for  the  good  of  our  connec- 
tion."   Moore's  Wesley,  ii.  276. 

BISHOP  JOHN  EMORY. 

This  view  of  the  Methodists  is  also  distinctly 
stated  by  their  eminent  Bishop  Emory,  in  his 
"Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  p.  58:  "We  have 
already  referred  to  the  practice  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria  in  making  their  bishops  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years.  The  mode  in  which 
some  High  Church  writers  attempt  to  explain 
Jerome's  account  of  the  matter,  we  are  not  un- 
apprised of.  It  would  he  easy  to  show  that 
their  explanation  by  no  means  deprives  us,  in 
this  case,  of  the  authority  of  Jerome;  and  those 
learned  doctors,  to  use  the  language  of  Stilling- 
fleet,  who  would  persuade  us,  that  the  presbyters 
did  only  make  choice  of  the  persons,  but  the 
ordination  was  performed  by  other  bishops, 
would  do  well  to  tell  us  first  who  and  where 
those  bishops  were,  especially  while  Egypt  re- 
mained but  one  province  under  the  Pradectus 
Augustalis.  But  in  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
our  understanding  of  the  case,  we  adduce  the 
testimony  of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  him- 
self, who  expressly  afhrms,  as  we  have  before 
quoted,  'that  the  twelve  presbyters,'  etc. 

"  Stillingfleet  understood  this  case,  as  pub- 
lished by  the  most  learned  Selden,  precisely  in 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE!. 

the  same  sense;  and  it  is  evident  that  Arch- 
bishop Ussher  did  also."  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  Methodist  Church  appeals  to  the  Primitive 
precedent,  and  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 

DR.  GEORGE  PECK. 

Rev.  George  Peck,  D.  D.,  in  the  Meth.  Quar. 
Rev.,  January  1845,  in  a  review  of  the  Potts 
and  Wfiinwright  controversy  of  1844,  thus, ex- 
presses himself  with  regard  to  the  language  of 
the  editor  of  the  Report,  Rev.  1.  C.  Richmond. 
It  furnishes  further  and  direct  evidence  in  re- 
gard to  the  view  of  this  great  denominati(.n, 
with  respect  to  their  Orders,  and  bow  they  ap- 
preciate the  offers  of  new  Orders  from  High 
Churchmen: 

"It  is  remarkable  that  the  note-writer,  who 
takes  frequent  notice  of  the  Methodists,  though 
he  sometimes  classes  them  with  'Mormons' 
and  all  sorts  of  fanatics,  still  arrays  against 
them  the  Presbyterians,  on  the  side  of  the  Epis- 
copalians.  Now  we  protest  against  this  classi- 
fication. 

"The  Methodists  in  this  country,  have 
adopted  an  episcopal  form  of  government,  as, 
according  to  Archbishop  Whateley,  they  had  a 
perfect  right  to  do.  But  Methodist  Episco- 
pacy is  based  upon  and  grows  out  of  the  presby- 
tery.   It  is  an  official  relation  concerted  for  the 


DR,  GEORGE  PECK. 


247 


tarmonious  action  of  the  great  itinerant  scheme, 
and  the  better  government  of  the  Church.  But 
it  claims  no  divine  right  or  apostolical  succession, 
as  these  things  are  understood  by  High  Church- 
men, for  its  basis. 

"  la  the  great  controversy  between  Presby- 
terians and  Episcopalians;  upon  apostolical  suc- 
cession, we  symbolize  with  the  former  and  not 
with  the  latter.  Our  episcopacy  is  not  antago- 
nistic to  presbyterianism  as  we  understand  it, 
but  is  the  very  modification  of  it,  which  Baxter 
and  Gillespie,  and  many  of  the  reformers  seem 
to  have  in  their  conceptions,  but  did  not  realize 
in  history.  An  exception  to  this  remark,  pei'- 
haps,  should  be  made  of  the  German  Lutherans, 
who  have  a  Superintendency  or  an  episcopacy 
somewhat  similar  to  ours. 

"  We  are  not,  then,  to  be  ranked  among  Epis- 
copalians, when  the  great  essential  elements  of 
their  creed,  episcopacy  jure  divino,  and  a  per- 
sonal succession  of  bishops  from  the  apostles  only 
having  the  right  of  ordination  is  taken  into  ac- 
count. We  are  at  war  with  these  principles, 
not  because  we  would  have,  but  cannot  obtain, 
what  our  successionists  call  a  legitimate  epis- 
copacy, but  because  we  believe  this  episcopacy 
to  be  contrary  to  Scripture,  and  destructive  of 
true  Christian  unity. 

"  No,  gentlemen :  we  do  not  want  your  *  sue- 


248  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


cession,'  we  would  not  thank  you  for  it.  We 
reject  it  as  an  usurpation,  and  would  in  no  case 
descend  to  accept  it  at  your  hands.  We  under- 
stand what  a  note-writer  means  by  'the  wishes 
of  the  Methodists,  who  would  have  it  if  they 
could,  and  might  if  they  would.'" 

This  is  sufficiently  plain  language.  This  pre- 
dominant Communion  originally  based  on  the 
Alexandrian  principle,  which  has  so  greatly 
outstripped  in  numbers  and  strength,  its  sister 
Church,  which  starting  in  this  country  under 
far  more  promising  circumstances,  unwisely 
saddled  itself  with  the  feudal  principles  of  Laud 
and  the  Stewarts;  can  never  be  persuaded  to 
take  the  back  track,  and  adopt  a  scheme, 
which  though  it  may  boast  of  a  succession, 
which  does  not  exist,  has  abundantly  proved 
itself  in  this  age,  and  country,  devoid  o{  success. 


JOSIAH  CONDER. 


249 


NON-CONFORMIST  TESTIMONY. 
JOSIAH  CONDER. 

In  addition  to  the  statements  already  given 
of  Non-Episcopalians  of  Great  Britain,  we  pre- 
sent the  argument  of  Josiah  Conder,  a  layman 
of  great  ability,  an  editor  and  author,  who  in 
his  work  on  "Protestant  Nonconformity," 
writes :  "  Of  the  existence  of  a  '  college  of 
elders,'  as  it  is  termed,  acting  in  concert  with 
the  presiding  pastor  or  arch-presbyter,  there 
are  undoubted  traces  in  the  annals  of  the  early 
ages.  Ignatius  terms  the  presbyters  '  the  San- 
hedrim of  the  Church.'  Other  Fathers  allude 
to  them  under  the  title  of  clergy.  Jerome 
speaks  of  them  as  the  Senate  or  Common  Coun- 
cil, by  whom  the  Church  was  governed.  Euty- 
chius  remarks  that  there  were  twelve  presbyters 
who  constituted  the  government  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria.  .  .  .  That  the  early  introduc- 
tion of  a  presidency  in  the  board  of  presbyters 
had  its  rise  in  the  custom  of  tlie  Synagogue,  is 
the  opinion  of  the  learned  M.  Basnage.  .  .  . 
Bishop  Burnet  acknowledges  that  even  'The 
order  of  the  clergy  does  not  appear  from  Scrip- 
ture to  be  a  positive  institution,  in  any  manner, 
as  the  sacraments  were,  ...  it  does  not  appear 
that  Christ  gave  any  directions  about  that 
matter — the  Apostles  never  represent  it  as  being 


250 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE, 


of  the  essence  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ, 
and  besides  it  has  been  fully  made  out  by  the 
most  learned  writers,  to  be  entirely  taken  from 
the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  which,  we 
are  pretty  sure,  was  not  of  Divine  institution.' 

"  The  primacy  of  rank,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Jewish  precedent,  involved  at  first  no  supremacy 
over  the  other  presbyters,  nor  did  it  denote  any 
difference  of  office.  ...  It  is  certain,  that  the 
bishop  was  not  only  chosen  from  the  number 
of  the  presbyters,  but  for  a  long  time,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  Eutychius  and 
others,  elected  by  them.  The  vestiges  of  this 
primitive  right  of  election  may  be  found  within 
the  Church  of  Rome  itself,  the  Pope  or  supreme 
Bishop  being  still  elected  by  the  Cardinal  Pres- 
byters *  .  .  .  The  original  reason  for  instituting 
this  office  of  presidency,  we  are  expressly  told 
by  some  ancient  writers,  was  to  prevent  schisms, 
and  to  remedy  the  inconveniences  of  opposition 
or  division  among  presbyters  whose  preroga- 

*"The  presbyterial  college  or  community  in  Alex- 
andria, and  its  authority  in  the  election  of  the  Patriarch 
(which  St.  Jerome  records),  bears  a  singular  resem- 
blance to  the  Roman  Cardinalate  in  its  earlier  form. 
See  Tamagna,  '  Origine  e  Prerogativi  del  Cardinali, ' 
who  quotes  an  important  treatise  on  this  subject  by 
Mario  Lupi,  Arch-presbyter  of  Bergamo."  Canon  Jen- 
kins on  the  Christ.  Patriarchate,  Cent.  Rev.  Novr., 
1874,  p.  849. 


JARED  SPARKS. 


251 


tives  were  equal.  'This  difference  between 
bishops  and  presbyters,  says  Dr.  Whittaker 
(the  learned  defender  of  the  Protestant  cause), 
remarking  upon  St.  Jerome's  Confession  that 
it  was  brought  in  as  a  remedy  against  schism, 
'is  a  remedy  almost  worse  than  the  disease, 
for  it  begat  and  brought  in  the  Pope  with  his 
monarchy  into  the  Church.'  "  Protestant  Non- 
conformity, pp.  214-20. 

ARGUMENT  OF  DR.  JARED  SPARKS. 

Dr.  Sparks,  the  editor  of  the  Writings  of 
Washington,  while  Pastor  of  the  Independent 
Church  of  Baltimore,  addressed  a  series  of  let- 
ters to  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt,  from  which  we  quote: 
"There  is  another  consideration  of  some  im- 
poitance  to  me,  and  to  all  who  do  not  agree 
with  Episcopalians,  on  the  subject  of  Church 
government.  If  you  are  right,  we  are  all 
wrong.  If,  as  you  say,  '  to  the  order  of  bishops 
alone  belongs  the  power  of  ordaining  ministers,' 
then  no  ministers  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Epis- 
copacy have  ever  been  ordained.  They  have 
usurped  an  office,  which  did  not  belong  to  them  ; 
they  have  undertaken  the  discharge  of  duties, 
for  which  they  were  not  qualified;  they  have 
been  guilty  of  a  rashness,  which  nothing  but 
their  obstinacy  could  account  for,  or  their  igno- 
rance excuse.    The  positive  ordinances  of  the 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE:. 


Church  administered  by  them  have  been  inva- 
lid, and  unaccompanied  by  any  of  those  good 
effects  for  which  they  were  designed.  .  .  . 
These,  you  will  allow,  are  serious  considera- 
tions, not  only  to  ministers,  but  to  the  people 
of  their  charge,  who  if  your  statement  be  cor- 
rect, are  ignorantly  entrusting  their  spiritual 
concerns  to  an  unauthorized  and  unprofitable 
ministry. 

"To  support  such  claims,  nothing  could  be 
considered  suflBcient  but  clear,  continued  unan- 
swerable evidence.  This  evidence  is  not  found 
in  the  Bible,  or  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
ages ;  it  is  not  found  in  history,  or  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  nor  do  1  believe  it  can  be 
found  anywhere.  .  .  . 

"It  can  be  indisputably  proved  from  the 
Fathers,  that  the  Churches  in  the  primitive 
ages  were  not  uniformly  governed  by  three 
order  of  ministry,  but  frequently  by  two,  and 
sometimes  by  one.  Secondly,  bishops  were  paro- 
chial clergymen,  in  many  places  at  least,  and 
nothing  more.  Thirdly,  ordinations  were  per- 
formed by  presbyters,  especially  in  the  case  of 
Irenseus,  and  for  a  long  time  in  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  fourthly,  no  particular  account 
can  be  given  of  the  origin  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  or  of  its  first  seven  bishops. 

"lu  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  later 


jARED  SPARKS. 


258 


Fathers  it  should  be  remembered,  when  they 
speak  of  bishops,  they  do  not  mean  the  same 
kind  of  officers,  as  in  modern  times  constitute 
the  first  order  of  Episcopacy. 

"It  is  to  be  observed,  that  a  bishop  had  no 
more  than  a  parochial  authority.  The  presi- 
dent of  a  single  church  was  called  a  bishop,  as 
well  as  the  president  of  a  larger  number.  These 
presidents,  or  bishops,  were  first  chosen  by  the 
congregations  at  large,  and  ordained,  or  in- 
ducted into  their  ofiices,  by  the  presbyters. 

"Irenaeus,  whose  testimony  you  bring  in 
favor  of  Episcopacy,  was  ordained,  according  to 
Basnage,  by  presbyters  only,  even  after  the  dis- 
tinctions between  bishops  and  presbyters  began 
to  exist;  and  this  is  allowed  to  have  been  the 
custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  during  the 
first  three  centuries.  At  length  it  became  cus- 
tomary to  invite  neighboring  bishops  to  aid  in 
this  ceremony  ;  and  thus,  by  degrees,  arose  the 
three  orders  in  the  ministry  which  was  after- 
wards called  an  Episcopacy.  .  .  . 

"The  Churches  were  not  all  uniform  in  their 
mode  of  government.  Some  Churches  gave 
more  authority  to  their  bishops  than  others  • 
and  some  retained  their  primitive  usages  longer 
than  the  others.  Doddridge  observes,  tliat  'the 
power  of  the  bishoys  seemed  to  have  prevailed 
early  in  Kome  \  that  of  presbytery  at  Alexan- 


254  TOE  Historic  episcopate. 


dria ;  and  at  Carthage  such  a  discipline  as  comes 
nearest  to  what  is  now  called  Congregationalist , 
The  Churches  at  Alexandria  gradually  declined, 
and  the  Roman  increased.  The  Church  of 
England,  and  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country,  it  seems,  are  a  branch  of  this  Eoman 
Church."    Sparks'  Letters,  pp.  9,  33,  46. 

REV.  GEO.  S.  MERRIAM. 

In  the  New  Englander,  July,  1867,  p.  478, 
this  author  says :  "  Jerome,  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  the  first  scholar  of  his  age, 
declares  the  original  parity  of  the  clergy,  and 
supports  this  view  by  the  striking  case  of  the 
Church  in  Alexandria,  where,  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  the  presbyters  con- 
tinued to  choose  and  install  their  own  bishops. 
Jerome's  statement  as  to  the  Alexandrian  cus- 
tom is  clear.  Hilary  gives  the  same  view  of 
the  matter. 

"  Clearly  these  presbyters  made  one  of  their 
own  number  bishop — not  merely  nominating 
but  installing;  him.  If  'nominabant'  meant 
only  'nominated,'  the  practice  in  the  Church 
would  have  been  the  same  as  everywhere  else. 
Jerome  mentions  it  as  an  exception — the  excep- 
tion clearly  being,  that  the  authority  of  the 
bishop  was  conferred  by  the  presbyters. 

"  The  illustration  in  the  case  of  au  army  and 


DR.  EDWIN  S.  HALL. 


255 


of  the  choice  of  an  archdeacon,  clearly  shows 
that  this  is  meant — 'just  as  if  an  army  should 
make  its  general,'  i.  e.,  choose  and  confer  autho- 
rity upon  him. 

''The  historical  evidence  which  has  now  been 
considered,  shows  that  the  office  of  bishop  as 
distinct  from  that  of  presbyter,  grew  up  after 
the  Apostolic  age.  .  .  .  Jerome  gives  a  clear 
and  well-sustained  account  of  the  gradual  rise 
of  the  Episcopal  order." 

DR.  EDWIN  E.  HALL. 

In  his  lectures  on  the  "Puritans  and  their 
Principles,"  in  his  examination  of  Jerome,  and 
in  reply  to  Chapin's  Primitive  Church,  we 
read:  "Let  us  sift  this  testimony.  Jerome 
begins  with  saying  :  '  I  hear  that  one  was  so 
impudent  as  to  rank  deacons  before  presbyters.' 
How  does  he  prove  that  they  are  not  so  ?  By 
asserting  the  identity  of  presbyters  with  bishops: 
'  Now  the  Apostte  plainly  declares  the  same  to  be 
presbyters  who  are  bishops,'  aud  he  refers  to  the 
passages  commonly  cited,  to  show  the  absolute 
identity  of  the  two.  That  is,  deacons  cannot  be 
superior  to  presbyters,  because  presbyters  are 
not  only  equal  to  bishops,  but  identical  with 
them. 

"  This  is  the  proof.  Will  Jerome  stultify 
himself  in  pressing  the  proof  further,  by  pro- 


256 


THE  HISTOBIC  fiPISCOtATfi. 


ceeding  to  show  that  presbyters  are  not  equal 
to  bishops  ?  He  certainly  does  not.  He  quotes 
one  Caius  to  substantiate,  not  to  deny  what  he 
has  affirmed,  viz. :  that  presbyters  are  by  divine 
right,  identical  with  bishops.  What  is  the 
proof  from  Caius?  why  this:  That  in  Alexan- 
dria, the  presbyters  elected  one  of  themselves  to 
hold  a  higher  authority.  They  could  not  make 
him  of  a  higher  order.  By  divine  right  and 
appointment  he  was  still  a  presbyter,  though 
by  the  election  of  his  brethren,  he  was  made 
their  presiding  officer  or  moderator:  'Just,' — 
says  Caius — '  as  deacons  elect  one  from  among 
themselves,  and  make  him  an  archdeacon  ; ' 
yet  he  is  but  a  deacon  in  order ;  he  holds  no 
divine  order  above  that  of  a  simple  deacon  ; 
but,  in  this  respect,  is  a  simple  deacon  still. 

"  "What  further  proof  from  Caius  ?  Why 
even  at  this  day  presbyters  are  so  identical 
with  bishops,  that  there  is  nothing  that  a  bishop 
may  do,  which  a  presbyter  may  not,  except 
ordination.  Here  is  no  divine  right  alleged, 
but  for  the  sake  of  order,  and  by  the  election  and 
appointment  of  his  brethren,  as  Jerome  has 
already  affirmed, — he  has  at  this  day  that  pre- 
eminence assigned  to  him. 

"  What  further  proof  ?  why  this  :  that  what 
this  bishop,  so  elected  at  Alexandria,  is,  that 
all  bishops  are,  whether  at  Rome,  Eugubium, 


DR.  EDWIN  S.  HALL. 


257 


or  anywhere  else  ;  one  is  as  much  the  successor 
of  the  Apostles  as  another  ;  presbyters  are,  by 
divine  right,  everywhere  equal  to  bishops.  .  .  . 

"  But  what  concerning  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
and  the  Levites,  as  answering  to  bishop,  priest 
and  deacon?  Does  Jerome,  after  building  his 
argunaents  entirely  upon  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  now,  at  the  very  close  of  it, 
turn  round  and  deny  that  same  identity  ?  By 
no  means.  The  answer  of  Stillingfleet  is  con- 
clusive on  this  point:  'For  the  comparison 
runs  not  between  Aaron  and  his  sons  under 
the  law,  and  bishops  and  presliyters  under  the 
Gospel ;  but  between  Aaron  and  his  sons  as  one 
part  of  the  comparison  under  the  law,  and  the 
Levites  under  the  other  '  {i.  e.,  not  between  high 
priests  and  priests,  but  coml)ining  both  together 
as  priests,  and  making  Levites  inferior).  *So 
under  the  Gospel,  bishops  and  presbyters  make 
one  part  of  the  comparison,  answering  to  Aaron 
and  his  sons  in  that  wherein  all  agree,  viz. :  the 
order  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  other  part 
under  the  Gospel,  answering  to  the  Levites 
under  the  law.'    (Irenicum,  p.  293.) 

"  In  an  evil  hour  for  Episcopacy,  she  fastened 
upon  this  passage  to  make  Jerome  contradict 
himself,  by  a  seeming  acknowledgment  of  a 
divine  right  of  bishops  above  presbyters.  His 
whole  argument  begins  and  ends   with  the 


258 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


affirmation,  and  the  proof  that  bishops  and 
presbyters,  are  by  divine  appointment,  one  and 
the  same.  Instead  of  a  contradiction,  it  is  as 
strong  a  corroboration  of  Jerome's  previous 
testimony  as  can  well  be  given  ;  that  by  divine 
appointment  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the 
same;  that  in  primitive  times  they  were 
identical;  that  bishops  grew  up  into  a  suf)erior 
order  little  by  little,  from  a  human  appointment 
as  moderators  ;  and  that  this  both  bishops  and 
presbyters  of  the  day  know  to  the  true."  In 
support  of  the  statement  of  Jerome  that  the 
institution  of  bishops  was  a  human  office  and 
not  a  divine  order,  Dr.  Hall  quotes  the  noted 
statement  of  Stillingfleet.    (Irenicum,  p.  301.) 

"  For  as  to  the  matter  itself  I  believe  upon 
the  strictest  inquiry  Medina's  judgment  will 
prove  true  ;  that  Jerome,  Augustine,  Ambrose, 
Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theoderet, 
Theophylact,  were  all  of  Aerius's  judgment  as 
to  the  identity  of  both  the  names  and  Order  of 
Bishops  and  Presbyters." —  Puritans,  ^c,  p. 
347-9. 

REV.  DR.  ROSWELL  D.  HITCHCOCK. 

"  On  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Episcopacy," 
in  the  Am.  Pres.  and  Theo.  Rev.,  Jan.  1867,  p. 
154,  this  able  divine  states :  "  As  the  Apostles, 
most  of  them  went  eastward,  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand why  Episcopacy  should  develop  more 


DR.  ROSWELL  D.  HITCHCOCK. 


25y 


rapidly  in  tlie  Orient  than  in  the  Occident. 
.  .  ,  .  He  then  quotes  Hilary :  "  Even 
Timothy,  who  was  made  Presbyter  by  Paul 
himself,  is  called  Bishop  ;  because  the  fresbyters 
oldest  in  office  were  called  bishops,  so  that  when 
one  passed  away  the  next  in  order  might  take 
his  place.  And  then  in  Egypt  presbyters  ad- 
minister confirmation,  if  no  bishop  be  present. 
But  because  presbyters  in  the  succession,  began 
to  be  found  unworthy  of  holding  the  first  places, 
the  method  was  changed,  the  Council  providing 
that  not  rank  but  //(crii,  should  make  the  Bishop, 
many  priests  uniting  in  the  appointment,  lest 
some  unworthy  person  should  assume  the  office, 
and  many  be  scandalized."  ....  Tha^ 
is  to  say,  Episcopal  vacancies  began  to  be  filled, 

not  by  succession,  but  by  election  

Such  appears  to  be  the  testimony  of  a  Roman 
Deacon,  who  was  also  a  clear-headed  and  able 
writer  near  the  fourth  century. 

"  Jerome  (born  at  Stridon  inDalraatia  about 
340,  died  at  Bethlehem,  420  a.  d.)  makes  similar 
statements.  In  his  Epistle  Ad  Evangelum 
(146th),  written  for  the  express  purpose  of  point- 
ing out  the  difi'ereiice  between  bishop,  presbyter 
and  deacon,  he  undertakes  first  of  all  to  show, 
that  in  the  New  Testament,  bishop  and  pres 
byter  are  the  same,  quoting  the  very  passages 
usually  quoted  in  our  day  to  wit,  etc.,  .... 


260 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


and  then  adds :  '  That  one  was  afterwards 
elected  to  be  set  over  the  rest  was  for  the  heal- 
ing of  schisnas,  lest  one  drawing  himself  a  party 
should  rend  the  Church  of  Christ. 

"At  Alexandria,  the  mode  of  appointing 
bishops  had  prevailed,  he  says,  from  the  time 
of  Mark  the  Evangelist  down  to  Heraclas 
(\vho  died  in  248),  and  Dionysius  (who  died  in 
265  A.  D.). 

"The  exact  date  of  this  change  of  method, 
spoken  of  by  Hilary,  cannot  be  given.  But 
what  Jerome  says  of  the  reason  for  this  change, 
enables  us  to  fix,  with  tolerable  certainty.  Upon 
the  secotid  century,  during  which  the  Church 
Vas  greatly  disturbed  by  heresies,  which  threat- 
ened to  result  in  schisms, and  perhaps  we  might 
say  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  In 
the  midst  of  this  pressure  and  peril,  the  Church, 
instead  of  taking  for  her  bishops  the  men  who 
chanced  to  stand  first  on  her  roll  of  presbyters, 
had  need  of  her  ablest  men,  and  therefore  the 
episcopate  was  made  elective,  the  presbyters 
choosing  one  of  their  own  number  to  this  higher 
office.  This  was  the  first  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment. 

"  The  next  stage  was  reached  when  the 
bishop,  instead  of  being  elected  within  the  pres- 
bytery, was  voted  for  also  by  the  people."  He 
gives  the  cases  of  Fabianus  and  Cornelius  and 


DR.  GEORGE  P.  FISHER. 


261 


Cyprian,  who  "  was  carried  into  office  by  popu- 
lar eufirage  over  the  heads,  and  in  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  a  nrajority  of  the  Carthagenian 
presbyters. 

"  When  this  point  had  been  reached,  the 
bishop  began  rapidly  to  concentrate  all  eccle- 
siastical power  into  his  own  hands." 

DR.  GEORGE  P.  FISHER. 

One  of  the  ablest  writers  on  Church  History, 
Prof.  Fisher,  of  Yale  Seminary,  thus  presents 
the  origin  of  the  Episcopate  in  his  "Beginnings 
of  Christianity,"  p.  551 :  *'  Respecting  the  rise 
of  the  Episcopate,  there  is,  at  the  present  day, 
a  near  approach  to  a  consensus  among  scholars 
in  the  various  Protestant  Churches.  A  thor- 
oughly learned  and  candid  discussion  of  the 
whole  subject  is  presented  in  Prof,  J.  B.  Light- 
foot's  Excursus  on  the  "Christian  Ministry," 
appended  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Philip- 
pians." 

"Within  the  covers  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  terms  presbyter  and  bishop  are  synonymous. 
.  .  .  The  original  parity  of  the  ministry  gave 
way  to  the  early  Episcopate,  which  spread 
rapidly,  and  became  universal  in  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  is 
the  first  writer  who  brings  to  light  this  change 
in  ecclesiastical  arrangements  ^we  ^.f^sumej 


262  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

the  more  probable  opinion,  the  genuineness  of 
the  seven  Greek  Epistles  in  the  shorter  form). 
In  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor  when  he  wrote, 
A.  D.  107  or  108,  the  bishop  was  above  the 
presbyters  ;  although  it  would  be  rash  to  afBrra 
that  the  extravagant  homage  which  this  author 

CD  O 

is  anxious  to  secure  for  bishops,  was  shared  by 
any  of  his  contemporaries.  On  the  contrary, 
when  Clement  of  Rome,  at  a  somewhat  earlier 
date  (a.  d.  96  or  97),  wrote  his  Epistles  to  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  the  equality  of  the  presby- 
ters there  still  continued. 

Then  referring  to  Polycarp,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Irenseus  and  others,  he  continues: 
"  Their  language  is  not  without  traces  of  that 
primitive  identity  of  the  two  offices,  which  is 
distinctly  asserted  by  Jerome,  and  before  him 
by  Hilary  Ambrosiaster,  and  which  the  Apos- 
tolic writings  exhibit.  .  .  .  The  sacerdotal 
conception  of  the  ministry  is  not  found  in  Igna- 
tius, in  Clement  of  Rome,  or  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, in  Justin,  or  in  Irenaeus,  or  in  any  other 
ecclesiastical  writer  prior  to  Tertullian.  .  .  . 
The  notion  that  a  priestly  unction  and  a  media- 
torial office,  analogous  to  the  hierarchy  of  the 
old  covenant  belonged  to  the  Christian  minis- 
try,  is  equally  foreign  to  the  Fathers  of  the  first 
age,  and  to  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. .  .  . 


DR.  THOMAS  SMYTH. 


263 


"Gradually  in  the  Church,  ordination  came 
to  be  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  the  bishop ;  but 
as  late  as  the  Council  of  Ancyra  (a.  d.  314),  we 
find  by  the  13th  Canon,  that  presbyters,  with 
the  bishop's  consent,  may  still  ordain.  In  the 
great  Church  of  Alexandria,  as  we  are  told  by 
Jerome,  down  to  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tHry,  a  vacancy  in  the  episcopal  office  was  filled 
by  the  twelve  presbyters  from  their  own  num 
ber,  who,  it  would 'appear,  if  he  received  any 
new  consecration,  themselves  advanced  him  to 
the  higher  oflSce;  as,  indeed,  Hilary  Ambrosias- 
ter,  and  Eutychius,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in 
the  ninth  century,  expressly  state."  Compare 
Lightfoot,  p,  249,  and  Giesler,  I.,  p.  140,  N.  2. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  THOMAS  SMYTH. 

No  author  has  written  with  more  ability  on 
Church  government  than  this  learned  divine. 
Rewrites:  "  The  Churches  in  Egypt  and  Africa 
held,  as  we  have  seen,  to  presbyterial  ordina- 
tion. This  is  further  evident  from  the  case  of 
the  Church  of  Alexandria.  After  the  time  of 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  a.  d.  231,  the  bishops 
or  presidents  of  this  Church  appear  to  have 
been  prelatically  ordained.  But,  however  this 
may  be,  previous  to  that  time,  even  from  the 
days  of  Mark,  the  presbyters  elected  one  of 
their  number,  and  set  him  apart  as  their  presi- 


264 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


dent.  This  fact,  which  certifies  the  custom  of 
one  of  the  most  prominent  Churches  during  the 
three  first  centuries,  we  will  have  occasion  fully 
to  substantiate.'"' 

"The  Church  (Alexandria)  was  one  of  the 
most  important  in  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  It 
was  the  seat  of  the  most  celebrated  of  all  the 
Christian  colleges  or  theological  seminaries, 
which  was  renowned  for  its  doctors  and  illus- 
trious for  its  literature.  Pantsenus,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  and  Origan  were  its  three  first 
professors.  The  Church,  therefore,  was  a  city 
set  on  a  hill,  and  gave  example  and  precept  to 
all  others.'"' 

Then  quoting  Jerome,  he  proceeds:  "It  is, 
liowever,  attempted  to  obviate  the  force  of  this 
testimony,  by  alleging  that  Jerome  only  attrib- 
utes to  the  presbyters  the  right  of  election^  while 
the  bishops  they  elected  were  ordained  by  some 
other  bishops."  This  however  is  a  vain  refuge, 
and  can  afibrd  no  help.  See  this  fully  and  ad- 
mirably shown  by  Baxter  in  his  Disput.  on  Ch. 
Govt.,  pp.  216-18.  Jerome  is  not  alone  in  tes- 
tifying to  the  presbyterianism  of  Alexandria. 
Eutyehius,  who  was  afterwards  bishop  of  this 
Church,  bears  the  same  testimony. 

The  learned  Renaudot,  in  attempting  to  show 
that  this  passage  refers  only  to  election,  and  not 
to  ordination,  is  compelled,  however,  to  contra- 


DR.  THOMAS  SMYTH. 


265 


diet  himself,  and,  like  the  high  priest,  to  hear 
witness  for  the  truth.  For,  while  he  insists 
that  the  word  here  means  holding  up  their 
hands,  as  in  elections,  and  not  laying  on  hands 
in  ordination,  yet,  afterwards  stumbling  upon 
a  passage  from  Sever  us,  where  the  former  trans- 
lation suited  his  views,  it  was  so  evidently  the 
sense  of  the  passage  that  he  could  not  otherwise 
translate  it,  he  blames  Ecchelensis  and  Morinus 
for  translating  it  in  the  latter  way,  and  affirms 
it  to  mean  ordination  by  laying  on  of  hands. 
This,  surely,  betrays  rather  a  bad  cause;  and 
in  fact,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  does  not 
alone  depend  upon  that  one  word,  the  word 
created  being  still  more  decisive.  Renaudot 
further  admits,  that  George  Elmacinus,  in  the 
first  part  of  his  annals,  gives  the  same  account 
of  the  matter  as  Eutychius." 

Then  quoting  Severus,  and  other  Fathers  (see 
above  p.  21),  he  proceeds :  "And  that  this  prac- 
tice— the  election  and  consecration,  as  far  as 
any  form  of  induction  was  used,  of  their  bishop 
by  the  presbyters — was  not  pccular  to  Alexan- 
dria, but  was  common  even  in  Rome,  is  proved 
by  Eusebius,  who  relates  (vi.  29),  that  in  the 
appointment  of  Fabianus  to  the  bishopric  of 
Rome,  the  assembly  that  met  to  elect  a  bishop, 
having  fixed  upon  him,  'placed  him  at  once  onthe 
episcopal  throne,  '  which  seems  to  me,'  says  Mr, 


266  THE  HISTOKIC  EPISCOPATE. 


Goode,  very  candidly,  '  irreconcilable  with  the 
notion  of  the  essential  necessity  of  episcopal 
consecration,,  to  have  entitbd  him  to  the  epis- 
copal seat,  for  he  was  installed,  in  it  without 
any  such  consecration.' " 

"Now  it  is  thus  proved,  by  numerous  wit- 
nesses, and  admitted  by  many  prelatists,  that 
the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  made  their  own 
bishops,  by  electing  one  of  their  number  to  act 
as  president,  and  that  this  practice  had  con- 
tinued since  the  days  of  Mark,  that  is  about 
thirty-five  years  before  the  death  of  John,  a.  d.  63. 

"It  may  seem  probable  from  Jerome,"  says 
Burnet  (Obs.  on  the  1st  Canon,  p.  8),  "  that 
presbyters  chose  their  own  bishop  out  of  their 
own  number,  and  that,  in  Alexandria,  they 
made  him  bishop  without  any  new  ordination." 
Smyth  also  refers  to  Thorndike's  Prim.  Govt, 
of  the  Ch.,  p.  58;  Xolan's  Cath.  Ch.  of  Christ, 
p.  19 ;  l^atalus  Alex.  Eccles.  Diss.,  pp.  123-4. 

DR.  SAMUEL  MILLER. 

This  erudite  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  Princeton  Seminary,  on  this  subject,  re- 
marks :  "  It  appears  from  Jerome,  that  the  first 
approach  towards  Prelacy  was  the  standing 
moderatorship  of  one  of  the  presbyters ;  that 
this  began  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria  very 
early ;  soon,  if  not  immediately  after  the  days 


DR.  THOMAS  DWIQHT. 


267 


of  Mark  the  Evangelist ;  and  that  this  was  the 
only  kind  of  clerical  imparity  that  existed  up 
to  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  when  it 
gave  place  to  some  higher  encroachments  of 
ecclesiastical  ambition."  Letters  on  Christ. 
Ministry,  pt.  ii.  p.  214.  In  pt.  i.  p.  187,  he  an- 
swers the  common  objections. 

DR.  TIMOTHY  DWIGHT. 

In  his  Discourse  on  "  Officers  of  the  Church," 
Works,  iv.,  238,  Dr.  Dwight  writes  :  "  I  have 
mentioned  every  passage  in  Scripture,  which  I 
remember,  where  bishops  are  even  glanced  at, 
or  the  existence  of  such  an  order  of  ministers, 
as  distinguished  from  elders,  is  directly  counte- 
nanced, even  in  the  opinion  of  its  advocates. 
If  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  elders 
can  be  found  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  it  is 
found  here.  But  here  no  distinction  of  this 
nature  can  be  found. 

"  Accordingly,  a  multitude  of  Episcopalians, 
both  bishops  and  others  readily  acknowledge, 
that  this  distinction  is  not  capable  of  proof 
from  the  Scriptures.  The  following  specimens 
of  this  acknowledgment  will  suffice  for  the 
present  purpose.  In  a  celebrated  work,  called 
'  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,'  approved 
expressly  by  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  the  main 
body  of  the  English  clergy,  together  with  the 


268  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


King  and  Parliament,  is  this  declaration:  *In 
the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention  of  any 
other  degrees,  but  of  deacons  or  ministers,  or  of 
presbyters  or  bishops.'"  In  support  of  this 
position  he  quotes  Stillingfleet,  Kainolds,  Hol- 
land, Burnet  and  others. 

He  says:  "The  testimony  of  the  Fathers 
does  not  prove  the  distinction  contended  for," 
and  refers  to  Ignatius,  Clement,  Polycarp,  Ter- 
tuilian,  Ireuaeus,  Firmilian,  Hilary  and  Theo- 
doret. 

"Jerome  says,  that  '  A  presbyter  is  the  same 
as  a  bishop  and  that  originally  the  Churches 
were  governed  by  the  joint  council  of  the  pres 
byters.'  Again  ;  '  Let  the  bishops  know  that 
they  are  greater  than  presbyters  rather  by  cus- 
tom, than  by  the  real  appointment  of  the  Lord.' 
And  again :  '  Among  the  ancients,  presbyters 
and  bishops  were  the  same,  and  finally :  '  The 
presbyters  of  Alexandria  ordained  their  bishops, 
for  more  than  two  hundred  years  from  the  first 
planting  of  their  Church.'  " 

DR.  JOHN  M.  MASON. 

This  pre-eminent  divine  has  given  a  thorough 
investigation  of  the  position  of  Jerome  in  his 
Essays  of  Episcopacy,  Works  iii.  This  work 
was  republished  in  1844,  as  an  antidote  to  the 
"Apology  for  Apostolic  Order,  and  its  Advo- 


DR.  JOHN  M.  MASON. 


269 


cates,"  the  work  of  Bishop  Hobart,  and  origin- 
ally addressed  in  a  series  of  letters  to  Dr.  Mason. 
The  contest  between  these  prominent  theologi- 
ans was  originally  started,  by  the  language  of 
Bishop  H.  in  his  "  Companion  to  the  Altar," 
p.  202:  "Where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed, 
communion  with  the  Church  by  the  participa- 
tion of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of  the  duly 
authorized  priesthood  is  the  indispensable  con- 
dition of  salvation."  This  was  followed  by 
another  volume  by  the  same  author,  entitled 
"  A  Companion  to  the  Festivals  and  Fasts," 
in  which,  p.  59,  was  written :  "  Whoever 
is  in  communion  with  the  bishop,  the  supreme 
governor  of  the  Church  upon  earth,  is  in  com- 
munion with  the  head  of  it;  and  whoever  is 
not  in  communion  with  the  bishop,  is  thereby 
cut  off  from  communion  with  Christ."  .  .  . 
"a  general  conclusion,"  "established  by  the 
uniform  testimony  of  all  the  apostolic  and 
primitive  writers." 

It  was  these  statements  that  called  out  the 
reply  of  Dr.  Mason,  from  which  we  give  an 
extract.  It  is  remarkable,  in  view  of  what  has 
occurred,  to  read  in  the  introduction  to  the 
Essays,  these  words:  "  If  it  does  succeed,  it 
will  be  a  sad  success  over  freedom  of  conscience 
and  intelligent  piety  ;  it  will  be  a  success  in 
riveting  more  strongly  spiritual  domination,  in 


270  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


sul)stituting  modes  and  the  opus  operaium  for 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit;  and  in  ultimately 
driving  out  from  its  fellowship,  some  who  from 
preference,  choice  and  even  conviction,  would 
rather  remain  (as  a  salt  indeed)  witliiir  its  com- 
munion." 

In  the  repuhlication  of  the  Essays,  p.  234,  we 
read  :  "  Jerome  states  it  as  a  histmcal  fad,  that 
the  first  bishops  were  made  by  presbyters  them- 
selves ;  and  consequently  they  could  neither 
have,  nor  communicate  any  authority  above 
that  of  presbyters.  "  Afterwards,"  says  he,  "  to 
prevent  schism  one  was  elected  to  preside  over 
the  rest."  Elected  and  commissioned  by  whom? 
By  the  presbyters;  for  he  immediately  gives 
you  a  broad  fact  which  it  is  impossible  to  ex- 
plain away.  At"  Alexandria,"  he  writes,  "from 
the  Evangelist  Mark  to  the  Bishops  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,"  i.  e.,  till  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century,  "the  presbyters  always  chose 
one  of  their  number,  placed  him  in  a  superior 
station,  and  called  him  bishoj:)." 

"  We  have  not  forgotten  the  gloss  put  upon 
this  passage,  by  Detector  (Bp.  Hobart)  in  the 
collection  under  review:  'The  truth  is,'  says 
he,  'that  Jerome  offers  no  authority  for  this 
assertion.'  In  his  epistle  to  Evag,  he  says, 
'  Nam  et  Alexandriae,  a  Marco  Evangelista 
us  que  ad  Heraclam  et  Dionysium  Episcopos, 


DE.  JOHN  M.  MASON. 


271 


Presbyterl  semper  unum  ex  se  electum,  in  ex- 
•  selsiori  gradu  collocatum  episcopum  nornina- 
bant ;  quomodo  si  exercitus  Imperatorum  faciat, 
aut  diaconi  eligant  de  se  quern  industrium 
noverint,  et  archidiaconum  vocent."  Does  St. 
Jerome  here  declare,  as  the  fictitious  '  Clemens  ' 
asserts,  that  the  presbyters  ordained  their  bish- 
ops ? '  no ;  Jerome  merely  asserts,  that  the  pres- 
byters named,  chose  one  to  be  their  bishop.  Does 
it  hence  follow,  that  they  gave  him  their  commis- 
sion;  that  they  ordained  him  ?  Does  it  always 
follow,  that  because  an  army  choose  their  gene- 
ral, he  does  not  receive  his  commission  from 
the  supreme  authority  of  the  State  V 

"  With  all  deference  to  this  learned  critic,  we 
cannot  help  our  opinion,  that  the  appointment, 
or,  if  you  please,  ordination,  of  the  first  bishops 
by  presbyters,  not  only  follows,  from  the  words 
of  Jerome,  but  is  plainly  asserted  by  them." 

Dr.  Hobart,  overlooking  the  Roman  idiom, 
has  thrown  Tnto  his  English  a.i^  ambiguity  which 
does  not  exist  in  the  Latin  of  Jerome.  Accord- 
ing to  the  well-known  genius  of  that  language, 
especially  in  writers  who  condense  their 
thoughts,  a  verb  governing  one  or  more  par- 
ticiples, in  the  construction  before  us,  expresses 
the  same  meaning,  though  with  greater  elegance, 
as  would  be  expressed  by  verbs  instead  of  par- 
ticiples.   It  is  very  possible  that  the  Detector 


272  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


does  not  use  this  construction  ;  but  the  Detector 
does  not  write  Latin  like  old  Jerome.  We 
should  display  the  sentence  at  length,  convert- 
ing the  participles  into  verbs,  were  it  not  for 
fear  of  affronting  a  scholar  who  insists  that  he 
has  '  sufficient  learning  to  defend  the  Episcopal 
Church.' 

(Dr.  M.  gives  an  illustration,  from  Cesar's 
first  sentence  in  the  building  of  his  bridge.  De 
Bel.  Gal.  L.  iv.  c.  17.) 

"  The  truth  is,  that  this  '  famous '  testimony 
of  Jerome,  points  out,  in  the  process  of  bishop- 
making,  but  one  agency,  and  that  is  the  agency 
of  presbyters.  Dr.  H.  himself  has  unwittingly 
confirmed  our  interpretation  in  the  very  para- 
graph where  he  questions  it.  His  words  are 
these :  '  Jerome  merely  asserts  that  the  presby- 
ters named,  chose  one  to  be  their  bishop.'  Not 
merely  this :  for  the  words  which  Dr.  H.  renders 
'  being  placed  in  a  higher  station  '  are  under  the 
very  same  connection  and  government  with  the 
words  which  he  renders,  '  being  chosen  from 
among  themselves ;'  and  if,  as  he  has  admitted, 
the  latter  declare  a  bishop  to  have  been  elected 
by  the  presbyters,  then,  himself  being  judge, 
the  former  must  declare  him  to  have  been  com- 
missioned by  them.  This  is  an  awkward  in- 
stance and  felo  de  se ;  yet  a  proof,  how  properly 
the  Reverend  critic  has  assumed  the  appellation 


DR.  JOHN  M.  MASOJT. 


273 


of  Detector  ;  for  he  lias  completely  detected  him- 
self, and  no  one  else. 

"  That  we  rightly  construe  Jerome's  asser- 
tion is  clear  from  the  scope*  of  his  argument, 
and  from  his  phraseology  toward  the  close  of 
the  paragraph. 

"His  position  is,  that  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter were  at  first  the  same  officers.  And  so 
notorious  was  the  fact  that  he  appeals  to  the 
history  of  the  Church  in  Alexandria,  as  an  in- 
stance which  lasted  a  century  and  a  half,  that 
when  bishops  were  made,  they  were  made  by 
presbyters.  But  had  Dr.  H.'s  construction 
been  right,  had  prelates  alone  ordained  other 
prelates,  the  fact,  instead  of  being /or  Jerome 
would  have  been  directly  against  him;  and 
surely  he  was  not  so  dull  as  to  have  overlooked 
this  circumstance;  though  it  seems  to  have  es- 
capted  the  notice  of  some  of  his  sagacious  com- 
mentators. 

"Jerome  says,  moreover,  that  presbyters 
originally  became  bishops,  much  in  the  same 
way  as  if  an  army  should  '  make  an  Emperor,' 
or  the  deacons  should  elect  one  of  themselves 
and  call  him  archdeacon. 

"  The  Detector  has  given  the  passage  a  twist 
in  the  hope  of  twisting  Jerome  out,  and  twist- 
ing the  hierarchy  in.  '  Does  it  always  follow' 
he  demands,  '  that  because  an  army  choose 


274 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


their  general,  be  does  not  receive  his  commis- 
sion from  the  supreme  authority  of  the  State  ?  ' 
Certainly  not.  Although  be  would  have 
gratified  some  of  his  readers  by  producing  ex- 
amples of  the  armies  of  those  ages  choosing 
their  general  and  remitting  him  to  a  bigber 
authority  foe. his  commission.  But  how  came 
the  Detector  to  alter  Jerome's  phrase,  '  making  ' 
to  ^choosing.'  We  always  thought  that  makivg 
and  commissioning  an  officer  were  one  and  the 
same  thing. 

"  Further,  bow  came  the  Detector  to  render 
Jerome's  *  imperator  '  by  '  general  ?  '  Almost 
all  the  world  (for  the  Detector  seems  to  be  an 
exception),  knows  that  '  imperator,'  in  Jerome's 
day,  signified  not  '  general,'  but  '  Emperor  ; ' 
and  was  the  highest  official  title  of  the  Roman 
ISIouarcbs.  It  is  further  known,  that  the  army 
had  on  more  occasions  than  one,  mude  an  Em- 
peror, and  that  this  was  all  the  commission  he 
bad."    (See  the  instance  of  Julian  in  Gibbon.) 

We  have  but  space  for  one  more  extract  from 
the  argument  of  this  acute  controversialist, 
which  includes  thirty  pages. 

"Whatever  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Epipha- 
nius,  may  write  in  favor  of  episcopacy,  must  be 
received  with  this  very  important  qualification, 
that  they  themselves  were  bishops ;  and  were 


t>R.  fiENRY  A.  BOARDMAN.  275 


testifying  in  favor  of  their  own  titles,  emolu- 
ment, grandeur  and  power. 

"They  had  a  very  deep  interest  at  stake. 
An  interest  sufficient,  if  not  to  stake  their 
credibility  on  this  point,  yet  greatly  to  reduce 
its  value.  On  the  contrary,  Jerome  had  noth- 
ing to  gain,  but  much  to  lose.  He  put  his 
interest  and  peace  in  jeopardy.  He  had  to 
encounter  the  hostility  of  the  episcopal  order, 
and  of  all  who  aspired  to  its  hoDors.  He  had 
to  resist  the  growing  encroachment  and  corrup- 
tion, and  that  under  the  formidable  protection 
of  a  civil  establishment.  He  had,  therefore, 
every  possible  inducement  to  be  sure  of  his  facts 
before  he  attacked  a  set  of  dignitaries  who 
were  not,  in  his  age,  the  most  forbearing  of 
mankind. 

"  The  conclusion  is,  that  Jerome,  as  we  have 
said,  is  a  more  unexceptionable  witness  than 

any  prelate  Their  silence  under 

his  challenges  is  more  than  a  presumption  that 

they  found  it  wise  to  let  him  alone  

Jerome,  with  the  register  of  antiquity  in  his 
hand,  and  the  train  of  presbyters  at  his  back, 
was  too  potent  an  adversary." 

DR.  HENRY  A.  BOARDMAN. 

From  the  work  of  this  author  on  the  "  High 
Church  Doctrine  of  the  Apostolical  Succession," 


276  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


we  make  the  following  extract  on  the  point 
under  discussion. 

"  The  Christian  Fathers  are  entitled  to  the 
same  respect  as  men  of  equal  piety  and  intel- 
ligence in  other  ages  of  the  Church,  but  the 
exorbitant  veneration  entertained  for  them  by 
Romanists  and  High  Churchmen,  has  been  a 
source  of  incalculable  mischief  to  the  Church. 
.  .  .  .  The  assurance,  however,  with  which 
Prelatists  are  in  the  habit  of  asserting  that  the 
testimony  of  the  Primitive  Church  is  entirely 
in  their  favor,  makes  it  proper  to  divert  on 
this  point  for  a  little,  before  proceeding  with 
the  argument. 

"  I  shall  show  in  another  connection,  that  it 
was  the  common  judgment  of  the  Reformers 
and  the  Reformed  Churches,  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  are  by  divine  institution  one  order, 
and  that  the  existing  arrangement  in  Prelatical 
Churches  by  which  the  powers  of  jurisdiction 
and  ordination  have  been  taken  from  presbyters, 
and  given  exclusively  to  the  bishops,  is  a  matter 
of  mere  human  arrangement. 

"  For  the  present,  I  content  myself  with  cit- 
ing the  testimony  of  a  single  witness  from 
antiquity  in  proof  of  these  points.  This  wit- 
ness is  the  celebrated  Jerome,  who  flourished 
about  the  year  four  hundred,  and  of  whom 
Erasmus  declared,  that  *  he  was  without  con- 


bR.  HENRY  A.  BOARDMAN, 


27? 


troversy,  the  most  learned  of  all  Christians, 
the  prince  of  divines,  and  that  for  eloquence  he 
excelled  Cicero.'  The  extracts  that  follow  will 
furnish  an  adequate  answer  to  the  questions  so 
often  asked,  ahout  the  time  and  manner  of  the 
rise  of  Prelacy.  I  give  them  from  Dr.  Mason's 
translation." 

Examining  Jerome,  and  employing  the  line 
of  argument  of  Dr.  Mason ;  after  referring  to  the 
Church  of  Alexandria  ;  he  concludes :  "  Finally, 
Jerome  states  that  even  in  Ins  time,  i.  e.,  towards 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  there  was  no 
power  excepting  ordination,  exercised  by  a 
bishop  which  might  not  be  exercised  by  a  pres- 
byter. '  What  does  a  bishop,'  he  asks,  '  except- 
ing ordination,  which  a  presbyter  may  notdo  ?' 
Notwithstanding  the  innovations  he  describes, 
had  already  been  made,  and  episcopacy  intro- 
duced (as  a  remedy  for  schism  !)  yet  even  in 
hia  time  the  new  order  of  things  was  not  wholly 
established.  Ordination  had  been  given  up  to 
the  bishops,  but  the  presbyters  had  not  sur- 
rendered entirely  the  right  o(  Jurisdiction,  nor 
indeed  any  other  right.  They  afterwards  lost 
even  this  measure  of  independence.  They  were 
obliged  to  succumb  to  the  bishops,  as  the 
bishops,  in  turn,  were  to  the  metropolitans  and 
patriarchs,  and  these,  at  last,  to  the  Pope." 

After  an  exhaustive  examination  of  the  sub- 


278  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


ject,  he  proceeds:  "These  extracts  show  that 
it  is  the  common  judgment  of  Reformed  Chris- 
tendom, a  party  in  the  Church  of  England,  and 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  ex- 
cepted, that  bishops  and  presbyters  are,  accord- 
ing to  the  Word  of  God,  of  one  order,  and  that 
PRESBYTERS,  equally  with  bishops,  have  a  right 

TO  ORDAIN. 

"  It  detracts  nothing  from  the  force  of  this 
conclusion,  that  the  Churches  just  named,  prac- 
tically deny  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordi- 
nation. We  quote  the  Church  of  England, 
both  as  to  theory  and  practice,  against  itself, 
and  leave  it  to  its  friends  to  harmonize  its  in- 
consistencies. As  regards  its  refusal  to  recog- 
nize any  except  Prelatical  ordinations,  it  is  to 
be  regretted  that  that  Church,  and  its  daughter 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  should  have  suflFered 
the  High  Churchism,  which  was  so  heartily 
repudiated  by  its  founders,  to  place  them  in  a 
position  which  has  so  offensive  and  Popish  an 
aspect  towards  other  evangelical  Churches,  be- 
cause this  cannot  but  have  an  injurious  effect 
upon  the  general  interests  of  Christianity. 

"  But  if  they  choose  to  give  themselves  up 
to  the  sway  of  this  spirit — if  their  bishops 
should  even  take  Laud  himself,  the  all  but 
canonized  '  confessor  and  martyr,'  of  the  Ox- 
ford, coterie,  for  their  model,  as  indeed  some 


DR.  HENRY  A.  BOARDMAN. 


279 


of  them  seem  quite  willing  to  do — it  could  not 
cancel  their  past  testimony  to  the  great  scrip- 
tural truth,  that  presbyters  and  bishops  are 
identical  in  ordor,  and  are,  so  far  as  the  divine 
institution  of  the  office  is  concerned,  clothed  with 
the  same  powers." 

Chrjsostora,  a  contemporary  of  Jerome,  in 
speaking  of  the  difference  between  presbyters 
and  bishops,  uses  language  which  implies  that 
presbyters  bad  lost  their  former  right  of  ordi- 
nation,  and  that  they  were  somehow  unfairly 
deprived  of  it.  He  says:  "  There  is  no  great 
difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter. 
.  .  .  In  the  ordination  only,  have  they  gone 
above,  and  in  that  thing  only  seem  to  take 
advantage  oi  {pleonectein\  the  presbyters."  The 
word  fleonectein,  in  New  Testament  Greek 
means  to  defraud,  to'  circumvent — see  2  Cor. 
ii.  11 ;  xii.  17,  18  ;  1  These,  iv.  6.  Harrison, 
"  Church  of  the  Fathers,"  p.  263-4,  has  shown 
that  Chrysostom,  in  his  Commentary,  gives  the 
word  this  meaning  on  the  above  texts. 

We  have  thus  far  presented  this  additional 
testimony  from  the  brightest  Lights  in  the 
Congregational,  Methodist,  and  Presbyterian 
Churches;  and  all  American  but  two;  to  fur- 
ther emphasize  the  fact,  that  the  custom  of 
election  and  ordination  of  bishops  by  presby- 


280  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATB!. 


ters,  which  prevailed  in  the  Patriarchal  Church 
in  Alexandria  for  two  centuries,  is  thoroughly 
understood  in  those  Churches,  so  largely  pre- 
dominant in  this  land ;  and  that  all  hope  of 
leading  their  ministers  and  members  to  em- 
brace the  views  of  the  comparatively  diminu- 
tive number  of  Protestant  Christians,  who  hold 
to  a  divine  order  of  bishops  in  Apostolic  succes- 
sion ;  possessing  the  sole,  exclusive  power  of 
imparting  a  right  to  preach  and  administer 
sacraments,  by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands  in 
ordination  ;  is  utterly  futile,  and  that  these 
claims,  so  openly  and  persistently  made,  are 
necessarily  becoming  more  and  more  offensive, 
as  their  unreasonableness  and  unsoundness  are 
becoming  more  apparent. 

As  this  class  of  people  rely  so  largely  on  the 
effect  of  Episcopal  ordination,  we  shall  offer 
additional  decisive  testimony,  from  the  writings 
of  divines  of  the  highest  rank  as  scholars,  on 
whom  Episcopal  hands  have  been  laid;  who 
defend  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  its  Original 
institution,  a&  a  human  and  desirable  arrange- 
ment, when  regarded  in  its  true  light  as  an 
Ojffice  ;  but  necessarily  injurious  when  wrongly 
held  to  be  an  order,  and  that  divinely  diverse 
from  that  of  Presbyter. 


DR.  Q,  A.  JACOB. 


281 


AI>DrriONAL     CONFIRMATORY     TESTIMONY  FROM 
CIIURCn  OF  ENGLAND  DIVINES, 

To  the  decisive  testimony  already  presented 
hy  English  Episcopal  Divines,  Willet,  Usshcr, 
Siillingfleet,  Stanley,  Litton,  Goode  and  Riddle, 
as  to  the  historical  fact  concerning  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,  we  now  offer  additional  evidence 
in  the  same  line,  by  other  equally  eruinent 
Theologians  of  the  same  Communion. 

REV.  DR.  G.  A.  JACOB. 

This  writer,  whose  work  on  "  Ecclesiastical 
Polit_y  "  has  been  widely  adopted  as  a  Text 
Book,  says:  "The  episcopate  in  the  modern 
acceptation  of  the  term,  and  as  a  distinct 
clerical  order,  does  not  appear  in  the  N^ew  Testa- 
ment, but  was  gradually  introduced  and  ex- 
tended throughout  the  Church  at  a  later  period." 
After  examining  the  patristic  evidence  on  the 
subject,  he  continues  :  "The  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy is  expressly  acknowledged  by  patristic 
testimony  even  in  the  fourth  century,  when 
there  was  so  strong  a  tendency  to  magnify 
the  bishop's  office.  It  is  acknowledged  that 
churches  were  at  first  governed  by  the  comnion 
advice  of  presbyters;  that  schisms  and  con- 
tentions among  them  made  it  necessary  to  place 
one  over  the  others,  and  that  the  custom  of  the 


282 


THE  HISTORIC 


EPISCOPATK. 


Church,  ratlier  than  any  orditiatice  of  the  Lord, 
made  bishops  greater  than  the  rest.  Let  Je- 
rome's unmistakable  •words  be  a  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  this:  'Idem  est  ergo  Presbyter  qui 
P^l'iscopus,'  etc.  .  .  .  The  episcopal  office  in 
its  original  institution  was  one  of  simple  piority 
among  the  other  ministers,  rather  than  a 
superior  order  in  the  Church.  ...  A  very 
interesting  account  of  the  successive  advances 
.  .  .  made  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  is 
given  by  Prof.  Lightfoot  in  his  treatise  on  the 
Christian  Ministry,  appended  to  his  edition  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  He  there  points 
out  that  the  development  of  the  episcopal 
authority  was  marked  by  three  distinct  stages 
of  progress,  which  were  connected  respectively 
with  the  names  of  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  and 
Cyprian.  In  the  time  of  Ignatius,  the  bishop 
then  only  primus  inter  pares  among  his  co- 
presbyters,  was  regarded  as  a  centre  of  unity  ;  in 
the  time  of  Irenaeus,  he  was  looked  upon  as  the 
depository  of  Scriptural  truth  ;  and  with  Cyprian 
the  bishop  was  the  absolute  vicegerent  of  Christ 
in  things  spiritaal  in  the  Church."  Dr.  J. 
speaks  of  "  the  tendency  to  thrust  the  Church 
usages  of  later  times  upon  the  apostolic  age, 
without  regard  to  the  facts  in  the  case." 

"Jerome  expressly  affirms  that  it  was  eccle- 
siastical custom,  and  the  desire  to  prevent  dis- 


DR.  G.  A.  JACOB. 


283 


putea,  and  not  any  divine  law  that  caused  the 
distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters. 
This  distinction  according  to  him,  consisting 
principally,  if  not  solely,  in  the  authority  to 
ordain.  Long  after  the  general  establishment 
of  Episcopacy,  and  reaching  even  to  the  fourth 
century,  traces  are  to  be  found  of  presbyterian 
ordinations  still  retaining  their  place  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

"  Prof.  Lightfoot  quotes  a  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Ancyra  (a.  d.  314),  to  the  effect  that 
neither  tlio  country  bishops  nor  the  ctty  pres- 
byters were  to  give  ordinations  without  permis- 
sion from  the  bishop  of  the  diosese  in  writing. 
.  .  .  '  It  is  especially  important  to  observe  that 
they  lay  more  stress  on  episcopal  sanction  than 
on  Episcopal  ordination.'  " 

"  Anotlier  remarkable  testimony  to  the  ex- 
istence and  long  continuance  of  presbyterian 
ordination  is  given  by  Eutychius,  a  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria."  Then  quoting  Eutychius,  he 
adds:  "This  distinct  testimony  of  Eutychius 
is  confirmed  by  Jerome,  who  lived  so  close  to 
tlie  time  when  the  Alexandrian  practice  was 
still  in  force."    Eccle.  Pol.  pp.  67,  80,  112. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPAfE. 


DR.  LIQHTFOOT,  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM. 

This  eminent  scholar,  recently  deceased,  re- 
ferred to  by  Dr.  Jacob,  is  styled  by  Bishop 
Browne,  of  Ely,  as  "  one  of  the  ablest,  most 
learned,  and  most  candid  of  living  divines." 
In  his  Commentary  of  Phillipians,  p.  96,  he 
writes  :  "  Of  the  identity  of  the  '  bishop  '  and 
'  presbyter  '  in  the  language  of  the  apostolic  age, 
the  following  evidence  seems  conclusive."  Pre- 
senting the  ordinary  proof  texts  he  proceeds : 
"Nor  is  it  only  in  the  apostolic  writings  that 
this  identity  is  found.  St.  Clement  wrote  prob- 
ably in  the  last  decade  of  the  first  century,  and 
in  his  language  the  terms  are  convertible. 

"  Towards  the  close  of  the  second  century  the 
original  application  of  the  term  '  bishop  '  seems 
to  have  passed  not  only  out  of  use,  but  almost 
out  of  memory.  ...  In  the  fourth  century 
when  the  fathers  of  the  Church  began  to  .ex- 
amine the  apostolic  records  with  a  more 
critical  eye,  they  at  once  detected  the  fact. 
.  .  .  Of  his  predecessors  the  Ambrosial  Hilary 
had  discerned  the  same  truth.  Of  bis  con- 
temporaries and  successors,  Chrysostom,  Pela- 
gins,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Thooderet,  all  ac- 
knowlege  it.  Thus  in  every  one  of  the  extant 
Comraeutaries  on  the  epistles  containing  the 
crucial   passages,  whether   Greek   or  Latin, 


DR.  LIGHTFOOT, 


285 


before  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  this  identity 
is  affirmed,  'p.  230.'  Even  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  century  when  the  independence  and  power 
of  the  episcopate  had  reached  its  maximum,  it 
waa  still  customary  for  a  bishop  in  writing  to  a 
presbyter  to  address  him  as 'fellow  presbyter,' 
thus  bearing  testimony  to  a  substantial  identity 
of  order.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  view 
was  ever  questioned  until  the  Reformation." 

After  quoting  Jerome,  Hilary  and  Augus- 
tine, and  referring  to  Cyprian,  and  to  references 
presented  by  Giesler,  he  proceeds :  "  The  case 
of  the  Alexandrian  Church,  which  has  already 
been  presented  casually,  deserves  special  notice. 
St.  Jerome,  after  denouncing  the  audacity  of 
certain  persons,  who  would  give  to  deacons  the 
precedence  over  presbyters,  that  is  over 
bishops,"  and  alleging  Scriptural  proofs  of  the 
identity  of  the  two,  gives  the  following  fact  in 
illustration:  "At  Alexandria,  etc."  After 
quoting  Jerome  he  writes:  "Though  the 
direct  statement  of  this  father  refers  only  to  the 
appointment  of  the  bishop,  still  it  may  be 
inferred  that  the  function  of  the  presbyters  ex- 
tended also  to  the  consecration.  And  this  in- 
ference is  borne  out  by  other  evidence.  '  In 
Egypt,'  writes  an  older  contemporary  of  St.  Je- 
rome, the  commentator  Hilary,  the  presbyters 
seal  {i.  e.  ordain  or  consecrate),  if  the  bishop  b^ 


286  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


not  present.  This,  however,  might  refer  only 
to  the  ordination  of  presbyters,  and  not  to  the 
consecration  of  a  bishop.  But  even  the  latter 
is  supported  'by  direct  evidence,  which  though 
comparatively  late  deserves  consideration,  inas- 
much as  it  comes  from  one  who  was  himself  a 
patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Eutychius,  who  held 
the  patriarchal  See  from  A.  D.  933  to  A.  D.  940, 
writes  as  follows :  '  The  Evangelist  Mark, 
etc'  ...  It  is  clear  from  this  passage  that 
Eutychius  considered  the  functions  of  nomina- 
tion and  ordination  to  rest  with  the  same  per- 
sons." 

"  At  the  close  of  the  second  century,  when 
every  considerable  Church  in  Europe  appears 
to  have  had  its  bishop,  the  only  representative 
of  the  episcopal  order  in  Egypt  was  the  bishop 
of  Alexandria.  ...  It  was  a  matter  of  con- 
venience and  almost  of  necessity  that  the  Alex- 
andrian presbyters  should  themselves  ordain 
their  chief." 

Bishop  Ligbtfoot  proceeds  to  show  how  the 
views  of  the  episcopate  in  regard  to  power, 
changed  gradually,  and  decidedly  in  the 
periods  represented  by  Ignatius,  Ireneeus,  and 
Cyprian;  as  we  have  seen  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Jacob.  Then  discussing  the  claim  of  Sacerdo- 
talism ;  by  reference  to  Clement,  Ignatius, 
Polycarp,  Justin,   Irenseus,  and  Clement  of 


DR.  EDWIN  HATCH. 


287 


Alexandria,  he  proves  that  these  fathers  at- 
tached no  such  office  to  the  Christian  ministry  ; 
but  that  "  TertuUian  is  the  first  to  assert  direct 
sacerdotal  claims  on  behalf  of  the  Christian 
ministry."  The  march  of  sacerdotal  ideas 
was  probably  slower  at  Alexandria  than  at 
Carthage  or  Rome."  The  reason  is  clear,  the 
office  of  the  bishop  was  not  unscriptually  and 
unreasonably  magnified. 

DK.  EDWIN  HATCH. 

Few  works  in  this  age  have  produced  a 
deeper  impression  than  *'  The  Organization  of 
the  Early  Christian  Churches,"  by  the  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures  for  1S80.  The  work  was  soon 
translated  into  German.  The  Brit.  Quar.,  Jan- 
uary, 1883,  p.  127,  says  of  it:  "What  Nie- 
buhr  did  for  Roman,  and  Grote  for  Grecian 
history,  Hallam,  Stubbs  and  Freeman  have 
done  for  English  history.  Mr.  Hatch  has  done 
the  same  for  Church  history,  and  with  a  bold- 
ness and  noble  fidelity  to  truth,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  ascertained,  which  refuses  to  be  biased  by 
either  Church  traditions,  or  party  interests 
.  .  .  Its  patient  investigations  and  conclusions 
distinctly  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
ecclesiastical  traditions." 

Principal  Fairbairn  thus  writes  of  this  work: 
"We  cannot  but  admire  its  fine  analytical 


288  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


qualities,  its  delicate  appreciation  of  the  forces 
at  work,  and  the  true  sense  for  history  and 
historical  movement  that  pervades  it.  The 
book  is  a  healthy  one,  and  will  help  to  set  the 
question  it  discusses  in  a  fresh  light  before  the 
Anglican,  as  distinguished  from  the  English 
student.  .  .  .  English  scholarships,  broadened 
and  illumined  by  German,  is  becoming  too 
critical  in  spirit  and  historical  in  method,  to 
spare  the  old  high  Anglican  doctrines.  The 
Divine  right  of  Episcopacy  is  dead ;  it  died 
of  the  light  created  by  historical  criticism.  It 
is  open  to  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  modern 
bishop  has  no  place  in  the  I^evv  Testament." 

This  powerful  writer  (Dr.  Fairbairn),  has  so 
clearly  shown  how  the  Sacerdotal  system  grew 
out  of  the  perversion  of  the  Primitive  Epis- 
copate, that  we  quote  him : 

^'  A  priestless  was  too  pure  a  religion  ;  men 
were  not  yet  spiritual  enough  for  it.  The 
sacerdotal  was  every  where  esteemed  the  sacred; 
what  was  not  sensuously  holy  was  not  holy  at 
all.  Jew  and  Greek  alike  knew  the  priest, 
neither  knew  any  religion  without  him,  and  to 
bring  down  Christ  to  their  level  was  easier  than 
to  rise  to  His.  It  was  more  familiar  and  natu- 
ral, more  in  harmony  with  universal  and  imme- 
morial custom  to  speak  of  the  person  active  in 
things  religious  as  a  priest,  than  as  an  elder,  or 


DR.  EDWIN  HATCH. 


289 


teacher,  or  preacher.  And  the  more  important 
and  authoritative  the  bishop  became,  the  stronger 
grew  the  tendency  to  invest  him  with  sacer- 
dotal functions. 

"  The  inevitable  result  begins  to  appear  in 
Tertullian.  The  bishop  becomes  to  him  sacer- 
dos.  The  presbyters,  indeed,  form  an  ordo  sacer- 
dotalis,  and  the  bishop  is  sunmus  sacerdos,  and 
porUifex  maximus.  Hypolytus  denotes  the  office 
by  the  terms  archiemtia  to  kai  didashalia.  Cy- 
prian, of  course,  goes  further,  and  his  bishop  is 
uniformly  sacerdos,  his  associates  consacerdotes, 
and  the  presbyters  are  cum  episcopo  sacerdotali 
honore  covjuncti. 

"  In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  the  bishop  is 
frequently  designated  iereus^  and  once,  indeed, 
arehiereus.  These  terms  show  the  work  of 
deprivation  complete :  the  priestless  religion 
made  thoroughly  priestly ;  Christianity  trans- 
formed into  a  hierarchic  and  sacerdotal  system, 
ceased  to  be  the  religion  of  Christ.  All  that 
He  had  most  hated  in  Judaism,  entered  and 
took  possession  of  the  faith  that  called  itself  by 
His  name.  Ills  Church  ceased  to  be  a  society 
of  the  like-minded,  where  the  freedom  of  the 
spirit  reigned  ;  became  a  stupendous  sacerdotal 
civitns  or  state,  where  the  ecclesiastic  was  su- 
preme, and  obedience  was  conformity  to  his 
institutions."    Brit,  Quar.,  Oct.,  1881,  210. 


290  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


A  few  extracts  from  Dr.  Hatch's  work  will 
be  given  to  show  the  drift  of  a  volume  which 
will  amply  repay  critical  study.  On  p.  83,  he 
writes:  "I  approach  this  question  with  the 
greater  diffidence  because  an  hypothesis  has 
long  been  current  which  does  not  admit  of 
direct  refutation,  and  which  assigns  the  origin 
of  this  quasi  monarchical  government  to  an 
institution  of  either  our  Lord  Himself,  or  the 
Apostles  acting  under  His  express  directions. 
But  in  spite  of  the  venerable  names  by  which 
for  many  centuries,  and  in  many  Churches  this 
hypothesis  has  been  maintained,  and  in  spite 
also  of  the  disadvantage  under  which  any  one 
labors  who  declines  the  short  and  easy  road 
which  it  seems  to  offer,  and  winds  his  way 
through  a  dense  undergrowth  of  intricate  facts, 
it  is  impossible,  at  least  for  some  of  us,  to  accept 
the  belief  that  the  episcopate  forms  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  course  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  and  to  refrain  from  proceed- 
ing to  the  inquiry  whether  any  causes  are  in 
operation  which  are  adequate  to  account  for 
its  supremacy,  without  resorting  to  the  hypoth- 
esis of  a  special  and  extraordinary  institution. 

P.  98 :  "  The  episcopate  grew  by  the  force 
of  circumstances,  in  the  order  of  Providence, 
to  satisfy  a  felt  need.  It  is  pertinent  to  add 
that  this  view  as  to  the  chief  cause  which  oper- 


DR.  EDWIN  HATCH. 


291 


ated  to  produce  it  has  not  the  merit  or  demerit 
of  novelty.  Although  the  view  must  rest  on  its 
own  inherent  probability  as  a  complete  explana- 
tion of  the  known  facts  of  the  case,  it  has  the  sup- 
port of  the  earliest  and  greatest  of  ecclesiastical 
antiquaries,  St.  Jerome,  arguing  against  the 
growing  tendency  to  exalt  the  diaconate  at  the 
expense  of  the  presbyterate,  maintains  that  the 
Churches  were  originally  governed  by  a  plural- 
ity of  presbyters,  but  that  in  course  of  time  one 
was  elected  to  preside  over  the  rest  as  a  remedy 
against  division,  lest  different  presbyters,  hav- 
ing different  views  of  doctrine,  should,  by  each 
of  them  drawing  a  portion  of  the  community  to 
himself,  cause  divisions  in  it.  The  supremacy 
of  a  single  officer  which  was  thus  forced  upon 
the  Churches  by  the  necessity  of  unity  of  doc- 
trine, was  consolidated  by  the  necessity  of  unity 
in  discipline." 

P.  105.  "The  view  that  bishops,  and  not 
presbyters,  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
appears  first  by  implication  in  the  claims  of 
Zeph^  rinus  and  Calistus,  during  the  Montanist 
controversy,  to  have  the  power  of  absolving 
penitents  from  sin,  which  appears  to  have  been 
based  on  tlie  assumption  of  their  succession 
from  St.  Peter.    (Tcrtullian  de  Fudic.  21,  &c.)" 

P.  107  :  "  The  Church  writers  of  the  fourth 
and  filth  ccnlnrics,  Chrysostotn,  E[ii[)lianins, 


292  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


Jerome,  Hilary  the  deacon,  expressly  state  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  equal,  save  in  the  one 
respect,  that  the  former  only  have  the  right  of 
appointing  persons  to  Church  office.  It  is  main- 
tainable upon  the  evidence  that,  even  in  this 
one  respect,  the  writers  in  question  wrote  only 
of  the  usage  of  their  own  times,  and  that  in 
earlier  times  the  interposition  of  a  bishop  was 
not  always  required.  What  the  bishop  was 
conceived  of  having,  was  not  peculiarity  of 
function,  but  priority  of  rank."  The  cases  of 
the  ordination  of  Daniel  the  monk,  by  Paph- 
nutius  a  presbyter,  and  earlier,  that  of  Felicis- 
simus  by  Novatus  another  presbyter,  whose  va- 
lidity Cyprian  does  not  question,  are  presented. 

P.  130:  "The  conception  of  ordination,  so 
far  as  we  can  gather  either  from  the  words 
which  were  used  to  designate  it,  or  from  the 
elements  which  entered  into  it,  was  that  simply 
of  appointment  and  admission  to  office. 

"  But  there  is  one  element,  which  was  not 
present  in  admissions  to  civil  office,  and  to 
which  in  later  times  great  importance  has  been 
attached — the  rite  of  the  imposition  of  hands." 
After  showing  that  in  the  form  of  ordination 
of  a  bishop  in  tlie  Apostolic  Constitutions,  no 
mention  was  made  of  imposition  of  hands,  he 
proceeds:  "In  entire  harmony  with  this  is  the 
account  which  Jerome  gives  of  the  aduiibsiou 


DR.  EDWIN  HATCH. 


293 


to  office  of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  :  after  the 
election,  the  presbyters  conduct  the  elected 
bishop  to  the  chair:  he  is  thereupon  bishop  de 
facloy  He  quotes  from  Jerome;  refers  to  Eu- 
tychius,  "  as  a  later,  but  apparently  independ- 
ent authority,  to  the  same  effect ;"  mentions 
Flaccus  Albinus  as  adoptinsj  Jerome's  aocoiiiit, 
which  is  also  corroborated  by  the  language  of 
Synesius. 

"  It  follows  from  this  that  the  rite  was  not 
universal :  it  is  impossible  that  if  it  were  not 
universal,  it  can  have  been  regarded  as  esseu- 
tial."  ... 

It  appears  that  Gore,  whom  we  have  already 
quoted,  attempted  a  reply  to  Hatch's  Book. 
We  have  not  seen  it.  The  Brit.  Quar.  Review, 
Jany.,  1883,  remarks  of  it :  "  Mr.  Hatch  scarcely 
needed  to  have  devoted  the  pages  of  his  preface 
to  this  edition  to  reply  to  the  pamphlet  of  Mr. 
Gore,  which  is  ninch  stronger  in  vehement  lan- 
guage than  in  evidence  and  argument. 

"Mr.  Hatch's  work  has  well  nigh  paralyzed 
the  advocates  of  the  ecclesiastical  traditions 
which  it  travcrsofi.  No  competent  ecclesiastical 
historian  has  attempted  a  refutation  of  it." 


294  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


REV.  THOMAS  WYMBERLY  MOBSMAN. 

Among  the  most  thorough,  original  and  sat- 
isfactory examinations  of  the  organization  of 
the  Primitive  Church  of  the  first  two  centuries, 
is  that  of  the  author  above  named,  Rector  of 
Torrington.  Like  most  Episcopal  divines,  in 
his  early  ministry,  he  held  to  three  orders  in 
the  ministry  :  to  a  second  ordination,  and  to  the 
episcopal  succession.  He  was  led  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  facts  in  the  case,  by  a  careful 
study  of  all  primitive  documents  in  the  origi- 
nal. The  results  are  seen  in  his  "History  of 
"the  Early  Christian  Church,"  too  little  known 
in  this  country.  This  author  was  compelled 
by  the  light  he  received,  to  abandon  all  these 
positions.  In  Preface,  p.  xiv.,  he  writes :  "It 
has  been  too  hastily  assumed  that  Protestants, 
and  Non-Conformists,  as  they  are  called,  would 
not  have  had  standing  ground  in  the  Primitive 
Church.  I  thought  so  once.  Deeper  reading, 
and  reflection,  have  convinced  me  of  the  con- 
trary." "A  student  of  the  Fathers  I  had  been 
all  my  life,  but  had  always  read  them  with  a 
ready-made  apparatus  of  Anglican  views  and 
theories  at  hand  to  interpret  them,  until,  a  few 
years  ago,  I  resolved  to  review  the  whole  of 
Ante-Nicene  literature,  divesting  myself,  as  far 


RKV.  T.  W.  MOBSMAN. 


295 


as  I  could,  of  all  preconceived  opinions.  This 
history  is  the  result  of  that  review." 

With  regard  to  this  sulgect,  Mossman  says: 
"The  original  Constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say, 
is  the  most  important  question  of  Ante-Nicene 
Christianity." 

"  la  order  to  arrive  at  the  truth  about  tlie 
constitution  of  the  Alexandrian  Church  we 
must  collect  and  compare  together  all  the  state- 
ments which  can  be  foujid  in  ancient  writers 
bearing  upon  the  question  ;  and  although  the 
impartial  reader  must  judge  for  himself,  we 
shall  be  mistaken,  indeed,  if  the  evidence  to 
showr  that  that  community  was,  originally,  not 
what  is  now  called  an  episcopal  one,  be  not  felt 
to  be,  taken  as  a  whole,  simply  overwhelming." 

On  p.  94,  our  author,  quoting  the  language 
of  Eutychius,  remarks:  "By  making  or  con- 
stituting bishops  where  none  had  been  before, 
it  is  probably  meant  that  Derretrius  and  Ilier- 
aclas  appointed  in  some  of  the  principal  cities 
of  Egypt  one  presbyter  to  preside  permanently 
over  hig  brethren,  in  the  same  way  that  they 
did  themselves  in  the  metroi)olis  ;  and  as  all  the 
presbyters  of  Egypt  seem  to  have  been  called 
bishops  down  to  a  late  period,  this  will  account 
for  these  Egyptian  bishops,  in  the  later  senpc 


296  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


of  the  word,  being  called,  as  we  have  seen, 
archbishops. 

"  Strenuous  and  persistent  efforts  have  been 
made  to  shake  or  evade  the  force  of  this  state- 
ment of  Eutychius,  but  it  is  far  from  easy  to 
do  so.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  himself,  and  however  ignorant  he 
may  have  been  in  other  respects,  he  may  fairly 
be  supposed  to  have  some  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  his  own  Church.  Then,  his  work 
only  professed  to  be  a  Chronicle,  containing  the 
annals  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  Unless, 
therefore,  he  invented  these  stories,  he  must 
have  derived  them  from  ancient  sources,  extant 
in  his  own  day.  But  the  supposition  that  he 
invented  them  cannot  be  entertained  for  a 
moment. 

"  Eutychius  lived  at  a  period  when  it  was  a 
thousandfold  more  .probable  that  any  one,  a 
bishop  above  all,  would  forge  history  to  sup- 
port the  theory  of  exclusive  episcopal  ordina- 
tion, than  that  they  would  invent  it  in  favor 
of  presbyterianism.  Eutychius  wrote  at  a  time 
when  episcopal  ordination  had  been  pretty 
firmly  established  as  the  rule  throughout  the 
whole  Christian  Church  for  nearly  six  centu- 
ries. He  would  be  perfectly  aware  that  his 
statement  about  Alexandria  would  have  the 


Rev.  T.  W.  MOSSMAIf. 


297 


effect  of  lowering  the  estimation  in  which  his 
Church  was  held  by  the  rest  of  Christendom. 

"  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that  St.  Jerome 
tells  us  the  same  things  as  Eutychius  in  differ- 
ent words.  But  all  that  this  great  Father  says 
upon  Episcopacy,  and  upon  the  ancient  or 
rather  original  and  apostolic  constitution  of 
the  Alexandrians,  that  is  to  say,  the  Egyptian 
Church,  is  of  such  immense  importance  that  it 
will  be  best  to  give  it  in  full."  Jerome's  Com- 
ments on  Scripture  are  then  presented. 

P.  98.  "  It  is  indeed  most  beautiful  to  find 
how,  as  we  study  the  annals  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  the  light  breaks  forth  ever  more  and 
more  clearly  upon  us.  The  mists  into  which  later 
controversialists  and  upholders  of  theories  have 
enveloped  almost-  every  subject,  are  dispelled 
before  the  bright  beams  of  Truth,  and  the 
Church  of  Christ  becomes  visible  to  us,  with  her 
fair,  pure  face,  as  she  was  at  the  beginning. 

"All  ancient  writers  are  brought  into  perfect 
harmony  with  each  other — the  Apostles  them- 
selves, St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  Tertullian,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome, 
even  St.  Cyprian,  the  traditions  of  particular 
Churches,  facts  of  history  without  number, 
which  no  longer  require  to  be  explained  away, 
but  fit  harmoniously  into  the  fair  edifice  of 
historical  truth,  all  unite  iu  testifying  with 


298  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE;. 


accordant  voice  what  the  great  doctor  of  the 
Church,  St.  Jerome,  proclaims  iu  the  worda 
quoted  above,  that  Episcopacy  was  not  of  the 
Lord's  institution,  but  was  a  custom  which 
grew  up  to  take  away  schism." 

Then  quoting  the  language  of  Jerome  with 
respect  to  the  Alexandrian  Church,  he  writes: 
"  How  it  is  possible  for  any  one,  most  of  all  for 
that  school  which  professes  to  glory  in  accept- 
ing the  Fathers  as  witnesses  to  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Primitive  Church,  to  shut  their 
eyes  to  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  is  one  of 
those  mysteries  which  will  probably  always 
remain  a  perplexity  to  the  student  of  moral 
philosophy. 

To  the  objection  that  Jerome  says :  "  "What 
is  there,  except  ordination,  which  a  bishop  does, 
which  a  presbyter  may  not  do?"  He  replies: 
"The  answer  to  this  is  obvious.  St.  Jerome 
in  this  last  passage  is  not  writing  history;  he 
is  not  saying  what  presbyters  could  or  could 
not  do  at  the  beginning  of  the  Church ;  he 
merely  says  that  even  then,  at  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century  after  Christ,  after  all  the  inno- 
vations which  had  taken  place — the  only  differ- 
ence between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  was, 
that  it  was  not  lawful  for  the  latter  to  ordain." 

And  this  no  one  ever  thought  of  disputing. 
Every  moderately  informed  person  in  his  day 


reV.  t.  w,  mobsman. 


m 


knew  that  innovating  bishops,  such  as  Alex- 
ander, and  innovating  councils,  such  as  Ancyra, 
had  taken  away  the  rights  of  the  presbytery. 
And  as  the  whole  Church  appeared  to  acquiesce 
in  the  loss  of  freedom  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
there  was  nothing  left  for  such  writers  at  St. 
Jerome,  except  to  call  attention  to  the  original 
identity  of  bishops  and  priests. 

To  the  common  suggestion  that  bishops  were 
called  in  from  abroad  to  consecrate  the  Alex- 
andrian Patriarch,  Mossman  replies:  "The 
election  of  a  bishop  by  presbyters  was  not  such 
an  unusual  event  in  the  fourth  century,  that 
St.  Jerome  should  go  out  of  his  way  to  point 
out  that  it  had  been  the  custom  in  Egypt  about 
a  century  previous.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  St.  Jerome  felt  it  a  part  of  his  mission  to 
put  down  episcopal  and  prelatic  pride,  and  to 
recall  men's  minds  to  the  original  constitution 
of  the  Church  ;  and  tliis  being  the  case,  he 
could  have  found  abundant  evidence  much 
nearer  at  hand,  if  he  had  only  wanted  to  ehow 
that  priests  could  elect  their  bishops." 

To  the  supposition  that  the  twelve  who 
elected  the  patriarch  were  a'college  of  bishops, 
it  is  replied,  that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof 
for  it,  that  the  idea  is  opposed  by  the  direct 
statement  of  Eutychius;  that  the  patriarch 


8U0 


THE  HiSTORiC  EPISCOPATE. 


would  have  needed  no  fresh  consecration,  being 
already  a  bishop. 

"  If  Ave  at  once  recognize  the  simple  fact  that, 
during  the  third  century,  the  patriarchs  of 
Alexandria  gradually  altered  the  original 
constitution  of  their  Church,  and  brought  it 
into  conformity  with  the  practice  of  the  rest  of 
the  Church  Catholic,  which  about  a.d.  250  was 
assuming  a  rigidly  episcopal  form,  then  all  be- 
comes clear,  simple  and  straightforward  ;  ex- 
planations so  called  are  unneeded,  paradoxes 
vanish,  and  historical  nebulous  mists  melt  away 
before  the  keen,  searching  glance  of  honest 
criticism." 

P.  102 :  "  Whatever  modern  writers  may 
assert  to  the  contrary,  ancient  authors  give  no 
countenance  to  the  theory  that  no  alterations 
have  taken  place  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
Thus  a  writer  in  the  fourth  century,  who 
passes  under  the  name  of  Ambrosiaster,  and 
whose  writings  are  usually  bound  up  with  those 
of  St.  Ambrose,  has  a  remarkable  and  interest- 
ing passage  upon  the  changes  which  had  taken 
place  up  to  his  day.  If  this  writer  were,  as 
some  learned  meil  suppose,  a  deacon  of  the 
Roman  Church  named  Hilary,  his  testimony  is 
still  more  valuable,  for  while  asserting  the 
original  absolute  identity  of  bishops  and  priests, 


ftEV.  t.  W.  MOBSMAN. 


301 


he  speaks  strongly  of  the  immense  difference 
between  priests  and  deacons." 

Criticising  a  remark  of  Hilary  about  Evange- 
lists, Mossman  writes:  "The  fact  that  Mark 
himself,  who  certainly  did  not  hold  any  higher 
rank  in  the  Apostolic  Church  than  that  of  one 
of  the  seventy  disciples,  in  other  words,  of  pres- 
byter, or  elder,  yet  ordained  other  presbyters, 
is  a  proof  that  presbyters  had  the  power  of 
ordination.  If  there  were  any  truth  in  the 
episcopal  theory,  that  bishops  have  succeeded 
in  the  place  of  the  Apostles,  presbyters  of  the 
seventy  elders,  St.  Mark  ought  to  have  been 
ordained  bishop,  before  he  himself  could  ordain. 
But  all  antiquity  testifies  that  Mark  was  never 
anything  higher  than  a  presbyter." 

After  quoting  another  Hilary,  who  writes : 
"  For  in  Alexandria  and  throughout  the  whole 
of  Egypt,  if  a  bishop  be  absent,  a  presbyter 
consecrates ;"  our  author  says  :  "  Error  is  long 
lived  and  dies  hard  ;  but  it  may  perhaps  be 
hoped,  that  after  this  nothing  further  will  be 
heard  of  bishops  being  accounted  a  superior 
order  to  priests,  upon  any  higher  ground  than 
that  of  a  supposed  convenient  and  profitable 
ecclesiastical  arrangement." 

Mossman  in  his  work  of  514  pages  thoroughly 
ventilates  the  whole  subject  critically,  analyz- 
ing the  writings  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  Poly- 


302 


The  historic  episcopaTbI. 


carp  and  St.  Herraas  ;  everything  in  the  first  two 
centuries,  which  can  throw  light  on  the  early 
government  of  the  Church. 

With  respect  to  the  Non-Episcopal  Churches 
— our  author  thus  expresses  himself,  p.  181 : 
"Aa  for  the  other  so-called  sects,  such  as 
Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Moravians,  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe ;  Independents,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  in  England  and  America,  I  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  two  great  innova- 
tions upon  primitive  spirit  and  primitive 
practice  are  alone  answer  ible  for  such  Chris- 
tian communities  being  in  a  state  of  separa- 
tion from  the  Catholic,  or  universal  Church  at 
all. 

"  One  of  these  innovations  was  the  invention 
and  growth  of  the  system  of  Canon  Law,  com- 
mencing with  the  tremendous  forgery  of  t-he 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  a  forgery  with  which, 
what  is  itself  a  creature  of  Canon  Law  the  later 
form  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  is  closely  con- 
nected. 

"  The  other  ia  the  so-called  establishment  of 
the  Church  by  Constantine,  but  which  might 
be  much  more  properly  called  an  establishment 
of  the  temporal  power  of  the  episcopate." 

Speaking  of  the  Canons  of  Ancyra,  A.  D.  314, 
he  says,  p.  491 :  ''  I  am  firmly  convinced  that 
the  more  this  part  of  Church  history  is  studied, 


ftEV.  T.  W.  MOSSMaN. 


303 


the  more  clearly  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  was  no 
question  of  distinction  of  order  between  presby- 
ter and  bishop  involved  in  these  Canons,  sim- 
ply because  that  particular  distinction  had  not 
as  yet  been  thought  of  by  any  one." 

Thus  we  see  that  that  distinction,  which  is 
now  regarded  by  many  as  having  the  force  of  a 
divine  revelation  ;  is  pronounced  by  this  candid 
Churchman,  who  has  examined  the  question 
as  ably  and  thoroughly  as  any  previous  writer, 
not  even  to  have  entered  the  heads  of  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  the  Primitive  Church.  The 
whole  episcopal  scheme  of  divine  right  in  a 
third  order  is  proved  to  be  based  upon  a  delu- 
sion with  no  historical  basis  ;  and  for  ages  men 
have  been  claiming  divine  prerogatives  for 
functions,  for  which  they  have  not  had  the 
shadow  of  a  right,  neither  from  the  word  of 
God,  nor  from  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
Primitive  Church  before  it  was  corrupted  by 
alliance  with  the  State  ;  as  so  fully  shown  by 
the  writers  whose  testimony  has  been  pre- 
sented ;  scholars  of  the  highest  standing  iu  all 
prominent  sections  of  the  Christian  Church. 


804 


l-fiE  HlSTOftld  UPISCOPATE!. 


AN  ENGLISH  JURIST. 

In  his  Cathedra  Petri,  Thomas  Greenwood,  a 
barrister  and  English  Churchman,  has  given  a 
careful  examination  of  the  rise  of  Episcopacy. 
"  This  laborious  and  important  historical  work 
is  a  credit  to  modern  English  scolarship.  It  is 
composed  sine  ira  et  studio,  from  disinterested 
love  for  the  subject,  in  a  truth-loving,  candid 
yet  critical  and  genuine  historical  spirit."  Thus 
writes  Dr.  Schatf  in  the  Am.  Pres.  Review, 
January,  1864,  p.  1. 

The  testimony  of  this  writer  is  therefore  of 
very  great  value,  as  from  a  jurist  of  calm  judg- 
ment, and  capable  of  sifting  evidence,  and  of 
ascertaining  its  worth. 

Vol.  1,  p.  4,  we  read  :  "  In  the  absence  of  all 
contemporary  evidence,  we  may  presume  that 
the  outward  organization  adopted  by  the  Chris- 
tians of  Rome  resembled  that  of  like  associa- 
tions in  every  city  where  the  Gospel  had  been 
successfully  preached.  They  had  therefore  in  all 
probability  their  elders  and  deacons  or  minister- 
ing officers,  and  numbered  among  the  most 
active  and  energetic  of  their  leaders  those  whom 
the  peculiar  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
had  qualified  to  give  the  requisite  impulse  to 
the  Christian  scheme.  In  the  Apostolic  times 
the  succession  of  bishops  was  a  matter  of  no  im- 


AN  ENGLISH  JUBIST. 


805 


portance.  The  first  Christians  could  have  had 
uo  other  object  in  view  in  the  choice  of  their 
ministers  but  the  fitness  of  the  persons  chosen 
for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen,  and  the  edification 
of  the  elect.  .  .  .  There  is  in  fact  as  little 
reason  to  believe  that  presiding  ministers,  pres- 
byters or  deacons,  were  the  strictly  stationary 
officers  they  afterwards  became,  as  that  the 
Apostles  themselves  were  so." 

Passing  on  to  the  matter  of  the  Ignatian 
Epistles,  p.  66,  he  writes :  "  The  ablest  scholars 
of  Christendom  have,  for  the  last  three  centu- 
ries, been  engaged  in  fruitless  attempts  to  dis- 
entangle the  text  of  Ignatius  from  the  mass  of 
clumsy  forgery  and  interpolation  by  which  on 
all  hands  it  is  admitted  to  have  been  defaced. 
The  extent  of  the 'falsification  was  in  truth  the 
only  question  in  dispute.  Referring  to  the  dis- 
covery of  three  Epistles  in  the  Syriac  tongue  in 
1845,  and  the  criticisms  of  Cureton  and  Bunsen 
thereon,  in  which  he  agrees,  he  remarks :  "  That 
version  we  therefore  accept  as  faithfully  repre- 
senting the  original  Greek  text  of  Ignatius' 
letters,  and  consequently  the  only  one  available 
as  evidence  of  the  real  character  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical system  of  the  Ignatian  period." 

"  It  would  be  very  rash  to  presume  that  the 
unity  of  the  Christian  body  was  then  regarded 


306  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


as  dependent  upon  the  adoption  of  one  uniform 
outward  organization.  It  is  even  probable  that 
many  Churches — e.  g.,  those  of  Corinth  and 
Alexandria — were  not  yet  episcopally  consti- 
tuted ;  and  it  is  apparent  that  the  mention  of  a 
bishop  or  presiding  elder  in  the  Church  of 
Smyrna,  can  go  no  way  to  prove  any  distinc- 
tion between  him  and  bis  fellow-laborers,  the 
presbytery  and  the  diaconate,  other  than  that 
of  a  simple  presidency. 

*' Jerome  says  that  the  Church  of  Alexan- 
dria was  originally  governed  by  a  college  of 
presbyters  under  the  presidency  of  one  of  their 
own  body,  with  the  title  of  proedros :  a  terra 
implying  a  chairmanship  of  a  popular  assembly 
rather  than  a  permanent  office  like  that  of  the 
bishop  in  Jerome's  age.  Eusebius,  however  (1. 
vi.,  26,  35),  gives  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
Alexandria  Church  the  title  of  bishop.  I  am 
unable  to  explain  the  discrepancy,  unless  it  be 
that  Jerome's  remark  applies  to  an  earlier 
period  than  that  spoken  of  by  Eusebius. 

P.  137,  quoting  the  language  of  Jerome,  he 
writes :  "  In  the  last  years,  therefore,  of  the 
period  under  review,  and  nearly  three-quarters 
of  a  century  after  the  establishment  of  Christi- 
anity as  the  religion  of  the  State,  we  find  the 
most  eminent  doctor  of  the  Latin  Church  de- 
clining to  place  the  title  of  the  Episcopacy  upon 


AN  ENGLISH  JURlSt. 


307 


the  ground  of  divine  ordinance,  expressly  reduc- 
ing it  to  that  of  religious  expediency.  The  ques- 
tions, therefore,  present  themselves  unbidden — 
Was  Jerome  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  the 
Ignatian  and  Cyprianic  writings?  or  had  those 
fabrications  not  yet  made  way  enough  in  the 
Christian  world  to  reach  the  learned  circle  of 
which  Jerome  formed  in  some  sort  the  centre? 

"Setting  aside  the  so-called  'Clementines' 
and  '  Recognitions,'  are  we  to  suppose  that  the 
more  ancient  and  respectable  compilations 
known  as  the  'Apostolical  Constitutions'  and 
'Canons'  had  escaped  his  notice?  or  that  he 
was  inclined  to  treat  them  as  harmless  fictions, 
not  perhaps  incapable  of  some  useful  application 
on  behalf  of  the  hierarchical  order  so  fully  con- 
stituted in  his  age  ? 

"  Without  attempting  an  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions, it  may  be  observed  that  the  idea  of  Epis- 
copacy conveyed  to  us  in  the  work  of  Jerome, 
as  cited  above,  does  not  advance  a  step  beyond 
the  genuine  Ignatian  idea  as  deducible  from  the 
original  Syriac  letters  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  presents  a  striking  contrast  to  the  hierarchi- 
cal theory  so  fully  unfolded  in  the  suppositious 
writings  of  the  martyr  bishop,  and  in  those 
attributed  to  Cyprian  of  Carthage." 

P.  Ill :  "  Throughout  the  whole  of  the  third 
century  the  hierarchical  and  monarchical  prin- 


808  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


ciples  appear  to  have  proceeded  jiari  passu 
towards  that  fuHuess  of  pretension  we  find  tliein 
to  have  arrived  at  in  the  fourth.  And,  indeed, 
it  is  believed  that  the  Cyprianic  writings,  or 
those  among  them  which  are  most  open  to  sus- 
picion, must  have  seen  the  light  before  the  close 
of  the  latter  era — probably  within  the  same 
period  of  time  which  gave  birth  to  the  Clemen- 
tine and  pseudo-Ignatiau  fictions. 

"  Mr.  Shepherd,  in  his  '  History  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,'  has  pointed  out  many  circumstances 
of  suspicion  attaching  to  the  'Letters  of  Cy- 
prian,' which  impugn  the  genuineness  of  those 
productions.  But  we  cannot  go  with  him  the 
length  of  regarding  Cyprian  himself  as  a  rqythi- 
cal  personage. 

"  In  the  preface  to  the  second  volume,  p.  xvi., 
this  author  while  regarding  the  Episcopal  form 
as  the  most  desirable,  remarks:  'Its  history 
discloses  to  us  that  it  cannot  be  exalted  into  an 
article  of  belief;  that  it  was  not  intended  to 
present  a  perfected  form ;  nor — as  was  the  case 
with  the  Mosaic  priesthood — is  there  in  that 
writing  anything  to  ideniify  it  with  the  moral 
or  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church.  Regarding 
the  institution  as  an  inslrument  with  the  highest 
reverence,  we  do  and  say  all  that  the  facts  con- 
nected with  its  first  institution  warrant  us  doing 
and  saying.    And  if  we  go  an  inch  further,  we 


A  ROMAN  CATHOLJC  WITNESS.  309 


are  inevitably  involved  in  the  dogma  of  a  per- 
petual revelation,  and  driven  to  search  for  the 
particnlar  body  in  which  that  revelation  resides, 
— a  task  which  lies  far  out  of  the  beat  of  the 
historical  student." 

It  is  here  seen  that  the  view  of  Greenwood 
corresponds  with  that  presented  by  another  of 
the  legal  profession,  in  Ch.  vii.  p.  68.  W.  A. 
Garrett.  We  thus  have  clergymen,  and  lay- 
men ;  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Methodists, 
and  Congregationalists,  and  also  Roman  Catho- 
lics ;  giving  their  joint  and  overwhelming 
testimony  to  the  absence  of  an  episcopal  succes- 
sion in  the  Primitive  Church  of  Alexandria;  or 
of  a  distinction  of  Order  in  the  offices  of  bishop 
and  presbyter.  If  there  is  any  certain  fact 
pertaining  to  the  Primitive  Church,  it  is  that 
here  considered. 

We  close  our  array  of  witnesses,  with  the 
presentation  of  a  modern  Roman  Catholic 
savant^  Professor  Ellendorf,  of  Berlin. 

A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  WITNESS. 

In  his  work  on  the  Roman  Primacy  in  which 
he  makes  clear  that  there  is  no  historical  proof 
that  Peter  was  ever  in  Rome,  (which  fact 
Greenwood  in  his  Cathedra  Petri  has  also  satis- 
factory established),  he  inquires,  p.  244  :  '"What 
Church  constitution  did  the  Apostles  ordain  ? 


310 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


The  Catholic  Church  says :  '  These  presbyters 
were  not  priests  but  bishops  of  the  present  day. 
These  are,  kaCezochen^  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  appointed  by  them  to  be  heads  and 
rulers  of  the  individual  Churches,  and  for  this 
end  entrusted  with  a  special  higher  power, 
which  was  imparted  to  them  by  a  peculiar  con- 
secratiorj.  Under  them  stand  as  subordinates 
of  a  lower  order  of  rank,  the  priests  properly, 
who  were  consecrated  by  the  bishops,  while  the 
former  could  only  be  consecrated  by  arch- 
bishops. The  latter  have  the  exclusive  right 
to  administer  the  sacraments  of  confirmation 
and  consecration.  In  every  Church  there  can 
and  must  be  only  one  bishop ;  while  the  num- 
ber of  priests  may  be  large.  The  bishops  form 
the  first  order  of  rank,  appointed  by  God  in  the 
Church,  while  the  priests  make  up  the  second,^  " 

"The  inquiry  now  is,  whether  there  were 
such  bishops  in  the  Apostolical  Church  as  a 
specially  appointed  institution  given  by  Christ  ? 

"  After  we  have  carefully  examined  and  com- 
pared all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  have  likewise  consulted  the  oldest  tradi- 
tions after  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  we  see  our- 
selves forced  decisively  to  reply  in  the  negative 
to  this  question,  and  to  hold  firmly  by  the 
view,  that  originally  there  were  no  bishops  in 
the  present  sense  ;  that  from  the  beginning  on- 


A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  WITNESS.  311 


ward,  bishop  and  priest  formed  one  and  the  same 
rank  aud  grade,  one  and  the  same  dignity  ;  that 
at  first  the  priests  were  appointed  by  the 
Apostles  to  be  pastors  of  the  Church  ;  and  that 
they,  as  well  according  to  the  name  as  in  fact 
were  bishops  ;  that  the  present  episcopate  is 
not  of  divine  but  historical  origin. 

"  This  one  view,  which  is  a  vital  question 
agitated  between  the  Catholic  aud  Protestant 
Church,  loe  will  prove  by  incontestible  reasons,  as 
the  only  true  and  correct  one. 

"  If  the  present  episcopate  is  of  divine  origin, 
it  must  of  necessity,  according  to  its  essence, 
show  itself  in  the  apostolical  century,  namely, 
in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  themselves. 

"  a.  Accurately  distinguished  from  the  priests 
and  be  placed  above  them. 

"  b.  They  must  have  possessed  and  exercised 
a  peculiar  higher  power  above  the  priests  :  (1) 
special  care  for  the  preservation  of  doctrine  and 
discipline :  (2)  the  distribution  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  confirmation  and  the  consecration  of 
the  priests. 

"  c.  In  every  Church  there  must  have  been 
only  one  bishop,  aud  he  must  show  himself  in 
every  case. 

"  Yet  of  all  these  things  there  is  not  a  single 
trace,  but  precisely  the  contrary,  as  we  shall 
show. 


312  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


"It  is  not  to  be  conceived  how  in  spite  of  , 
these  expressions  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  so  clear 
and  unquestionably,  there  could  have  arisen,  in 
the  Catholic  Church,  tlic  opinion  that  bisl>ops 
and  elders  were  differcnl,  and  that  the  former 
constituted  a  rank,  appointed  by  Christ,  above 
the  hitter.  But  the  grounds  by  which  the 
advocates  of  the  episcopate  defend  this  as  a 
divine  institution,  correspond  completely  to  the 
utter  baselessness  of  the  view." 

Ellendorf  proceeds  to  meet  the  arguments  of 
Walter,  whom  he  styles  "  the  most  powerful 
and  skillful  defender  of  the  Catholic  Church 
constitution  and  hiei'archy,  at  the  present  day," 
and  thus  concludes : 

"  From  these  numerous  witnesses  capable  of 
no  other  interpretation,  and  that  cannot  be 
refuted,  we  draw  the  conclusion  that  in  the 
Apostolical  Church  there  were  no  bishops  as  a 
higher  order  of  rank  above  priests,  appointed 
by  Christ;  that,  still  more,  bishops  and  priests 
were  one  and  the  same,  and  that  accordingly,  in 
any  Church,  were  as  many  bishops  as  there  were 
priests,  who  united  in  a  college — the  -presbytery 
— in  common  (or  collectively),  administered  the 
highest  government  in  the  Church."  Bib. 
Sacra.  Jany.,  1859,  p.  112. 


DR.  WHITTAKER. 


313 


A  CRITICISM  ON  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  JEROME. 

Some  argue  that  the  language  of  Jerome 
implies  that  the  change  to  Episcopacy  was 
made  in  the  apostolic  age. 

Sanders,  the  Romanist,  asserted  that  bishops 
had  been  appointed  by  the  Church,  after  the 
Schism  in  Corinth,  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Apostles,  though  not  under  their  direction,  and 
appealed  in  proof  of  it  to  the  testimony  of 
Jerome. 

ARGUMENT  OP  DR.  WHITTAKER. 

He  was  answered  by  Prof.  Whittaker,  of 
Cambridge,  King's  Prof,  of  Divinity,  among  the 
most  learned  of  the  Elizabethean  divines:  "I 
answer  Sanders  plainly,  either  that  he  does  not 
understand,  or  has  not  attended  to  what  Jerome 
intends.  For,  although  during  the  lives  of 
the  Apostles  some  said,  '  I  am  of  Paul,' '  I  of 
Cephas,'  '  I  of  Apollos,'  and  Jerome  writes, 
before  it  was  said,  'I  am  of  Paul,'  etc. ;  never- 
theless, Jerome  does  not  think  that  this  order 
was  changed  by  the  Apostles,  but  subsequently 
by  the  judgment  of  the  Church.  This  Jerome 
signifies  when  he  says, '  Presently  throughout 
the  whole  world  it  was  decreed  that  one  elected 
out  of  the  presbyters  should  be  placed  above 
the  rest '    "Was  the  thing  thus  done  decreed 


314  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


by  the  Apostles?  Jerome  himself  answers: 
'As  in  fact  the  presbyters,'  he  says,  '  know  that 
they  are  subjected  to  a  bishop  placed  over  them 
by  custom  of  the  Church.' 

"  Jerome  says  '  by  custom  of  the  Church,' 
not  by  the  decree  of  the  Apostles ;  then  he 
adds:  'Thus  the  bishops  may  know  that  they 
are  superior  to  presbyters  by  custom,  rather 
than  by  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  appointment.' 
But  if  the  Apostles  had  changed  that  order, 
and  had  placed  bishops  before  presbyters,  and 
had  forbidden  that  thereafter  the  Churches 
should  be  governed  by  the  general  council  of 
the  presbyters,  that,  indeed,  woidd  have  been  a 
divine  arrangement,  as  set  forth  by  the  Apostles 
of  Christ ;  unless  those  things  which  the  Apos- 
tles had  decreed,  should  be  ascribed  to  custom, 
and  not  to  the  divine  arrangement. 

"  But  during  the  lives  of  the  Apostles,  nothing 
was  changed  in  this  order.  For  the  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  was  written  when  Paul  was 
engaged  in  Macedonia;  but  after  this  time  he 
left  Titus  in  Crete,  that  he  might  appoint  pres- 
byters in  each  town  ;  Tit.  i.  6.  If  the  Apostle 
had  thought  that  the  order  should  be  changed, 
he  would  not  have  directed  that  presbyters 
should  be  appointed  in  each  town ;  nor  would 
Jerome  have  brought  testimony  from  Paul — 
Phil.  i.  1 ;  1  Tira.  iii.  2,  etc, — by  which  he  couI4 


ARCHBISHOP  WHITGIFT. 


315 


demonstrate  that  a  presbyter  was  the  same  as 
a  bishop.  Paul  had  written  his  Episile  to  the 
Philippians,  to  Timothy,  to  Titus,  and  Peter 
his,  and  John  his  after  that  schism  arose  in 
Corinth,  and  Luke  also  had  written  that  the 
presbyters  of  Ephesus,  after  that  schism,  were 
called  together  by  Paul  at  Miletus. 

"When  Jerome,  relying  fully  on  these  pas- 
sages (Epist.  to  Evagrius),  contends  that  a  pres- 
byter is  equal  to  a  bishop  in  all  respects,  he 
could  not  be  so  unmindful  of  himself  as  to  have 
supposed  that  the  arrangement  was  made  by 
the  Apostles.  So,  elsewhere,  when  he  had  sub- 
joined the  testimony  of  Scripture,  by  which 
he  proved  that  the  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
not  different  things,  he  adds:  'Afterwards  one 
was  elected  who  should  be  over  the  otliers.' 
If  ^afterwards  one  was  elected  who  should  be 
superior  to  presbyters,'  theri.-foro  the  Apostles 
did  not  introduce  the  distincticn,  but  a  certain 
ecclesiastical  custom  or  arrangement."  Contro. 
4.    Quaes.  1,  cap.  3,  sect.  29. 

MODERATION  OF  WHITGIFT. 

Dr.  Saravia,  Prebend  of  Canterbury,  presents 
the  same  plea  with  regard  to  St.  Jerome's  mean- 
ing, asSandcis.  This  divine  has  been  quoted 
us  an  asscrtcr  of  exclusive  Episcopacy.  But 
two  goupidcratiutis  ur'i  herg  worthy  of  notice. 


316  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


Archbishop  "Whitgift,  in  a  letter  to  Beza,  given 
in  full  by  Strjpe,  in  his  "Whitgift,  vol.  ii.  p. 
156,  states  that  Saravia  had  written  in  defence 
of  the  English  Church  against  the  assaults  of 
Beza,  briefly,  he  says:  "The  purpose  of  Dr. 
Saravia  to  assert  degrees  amonsr  the  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  was  wholly  undertaken  without 
the  injury  and  prejudice  of  any  particular 
Church  ;  that  on  them  the  necessity  of  defend- 
ing the  truth  and  ourselves  was  thus  first  im- 
posed by  others.  But  I  would  have  you,  wor- 
thy sir,  persuade  yourself  of  this,  that  there  is 
no  mortal  man  more  studious  than  myself  for 
the  peace  of  the  Church,  nor  from  his  very  soul, 
more  truly  wisheth  that  every  particular  Church 
would  mind  its  own  business,  and  not  prescribe 
the  laws  of  rites,  and  the  manner  of  govern- 
ment to  others.  For  this  is  the  apple  of  con- 
tention, if  anything  else  be,  which  bringeth 
forth  that  unhappy  estrangement  among  breth- 
ren (how  little  soever  it  be  discerned),  and  will 
still  bring  it  forth,  unless  it  be  timely  prevented." 

"  Most  learned  and  most  dear  brother  in 
Christ,  farewell,  February,  1594.  Your  most 
loving  brother  and  fellow-servant  in  Christ, 
John  Whitgift,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in 
England." 

This  letter  establishes  conclusively,  that  pre- 
vious to  1594:,  no  English  Episcopal  divine  had 


SARA  VI  A. 


317 


advanced  exclusive  claims  for  Episaopaey,  such 
as  are  now,  uufortunately  so  common,  and  more- 
over, that  the  controversial  works  on  the  sub- 
ject were  defensive,  and  not  antagonistic  to  the 
Presbyterian  Communions  on  the  continent, 
here  fully  acknowleged  as  Churches  of  Christ. 

Saravia,  and  Sutcliff,  Bishops  Jewel,  Bridges, 
Cooper,  Bancroft  and  Bilson,  who  had  pre- 
viously written,  are  here  vindicated  from  Epis- 
copal exclusiveness  and  bigotry,  by  their  supe- 
rior, with  whose  approval  they  had  published 
their  works.  Hooker,  about  the  same  time, 
wrote  with  equal  charity  and  moderation. 

SARAVIA  ORDAINED  BY  PRESBYTERS. 

Again,  with  regard  to  Dr.  Saravia,  another 
fact,  bearing  strongly  on  this  question  deserves 
special  notice.  It  is  stated  by  an  eminent  lay- 
man of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the 
course  of  a  thorough  discussion  of  a  topic  cog- 
nate to  that  which  is  here  considered.  Col.  J. 
M.  Patton  of  Virginia,  in  his  argument  on  the 
"Validity  of  Min.  Orders,"  before  that  Diocese, 
remarks,  p.  18:  "Rev.  Adrian  A.  Saravia  was 
an  intimate  friend  of  Hooker's  in  the  last  years 
of  his  life,  a  distinguished  theologian,  and  one 
of  the  translators  of  the  Bible  under  James  I. 
Though  a  Presbyterian  only  by  ordination,  he 


318 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATfi. 


was  zealous  for  Episcopal  government  of  tha 
Cliiirch,  in  Hooker's  sense  of  it. 

"  It  can  be  proved  that  though  he  held  such 
high  positions  in  the  Anglican  Church,  he,  like 
so  many  others  (the  great  multitude  of  vphom 
Keble  speaks),  never  considered  it  necessary  to 
take  Episcopal  orders,  and  never  had  them.  .  .  . 

And  so  Hooker,  who  had  never  denied  in  his 
life,  but  alwaj'S  maintained,  the  validity  of 
Presbyterial  orders,  sealed  their  validity  at  his 
death,  by  receiving  absolution  and  the  supper 
of  the  Lord,  at  the  hands  of  a  Presbyterian 
divine." 

Saravia,  like  the  Alexandria  divines,  while 
maintaining  strongly  an  Episcopal  polity,  it 
seems,  laid  no  especial  stress,  like  our  modern 
High  Churchmen,  on  an  Episcopal  succession. 


EDTYCHIUS. 


319 


selden's  version  of  eutychius. 

"  Constituit  item  Marcus  Evangelista  duo- 
deciru  Presbyteros  cum  Hanauia  qui  nempe 
manerent  cum  Patriarcha,  adeo  ut  cum  vacaret 
Patriarchatus,  eligerent  unum  e  duodecim  Pres- 
byteris  cujus  capiti  reliqui  undecim  mauus 
impouerent,  eumque  benedicerent  et  Patriar- 
cham  eum  crearent,  et  dein  virum  aliquem  insig 
iiem  eligerent,  eumque  Presbyterum  secum  coa- 
stituerent  loco  ejus  qui  sic  factus  est  Patriarcha, 
ut  ita  semper  extarent  diiodecim.  Nequedesiit 
Alexandrise  iustitutum  hoc  de  Presbyteris,  ut 
scilicet  Patriarchas  creareut  ex  Presbyteris 
duodecim,  usque  ad  tempera  Alexandri  Patri- 
arcliae  Alexandrini,  qui  fuit  ex  numero  illo 
cccxviii.  Is  autem  vetuit  ne  deinceps  Patri- 
archam  Presbyteri  crearent.  Et  decrevit,  ut 
mortuo  Patriarcha,  convenient  Episcopi  qui 
Patriarcham  ordinarent.  Decrevit  item,  ut 
vacante  Patriarchatu,  eligerent  sive  ex  qua 
cunque  regione,  sive  ex  duodecim  illis  Presby- 
teris, sive  aliis,  ut  res  ferebat,  virum  aliquem 
eximium,  eumque  Patriarcham  crearent.  At- 
que  ita  evanuit  institutum  illud  antiquius,  quo 
creari  solitus  a  Presbyteris  Patriarcha,  et  suc- 
cessit  in  locum  ejus  decretum  de  Patriarcha  ab 
Episcopis  creando."  Eutych.Patr.  Alex.  Eccle- 
sise  suae  orig.  Ed.  J.  Selden.  Lond.  1642.  4to. 
pp.  29-31.    Of  Selden  see  above,  p.  85. 


320  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATK. 


BISHOP  JEWEL  ON  JEROME, 

Bishop  Jewel,  whom  Hooker  staled  "the 
worthiest  divine  which  Christendom  hath  pro- 
duced  these  hundreds  of  years,"  iu  his  "De- 
fence of  Apology  " — a  book  placed  in  all  the 
churches  of  England  by  order  of  the  Queen, 
and  Archbishops,  writes,  vol.  iii.,  p.  294:  "  St. 
Jerome  saith, 'Let  bishops  understand  that  they 
are  above  priests  rather  of  custom  than  of  any 
truth  or  right  of  Christ's  institution  ;  and  that 
they  ought  to  rule  the  Church  altogether.' 
And  again,  '  Therefore  a  priest  and  a  bishop 
are  both  one  thing;  and  before  that  by  the 
inflaming  of  the  devil,  parts  were  taken  in 
religion,  and  these  words  were  uttered  among 
the  people,  '  I  hold  of  Peter,  I  hold  of  Apollos, 
I  hold  of  Peter,'  the  churches  were  governed 
by  the  common  advice  of  the  priests.' "  P.  439: 
"  He  saith  somewhat  in  rougher  sort:  'I  hear 
say  there  is  one  become  so  peevish  that  he 
setteth  deacons  before  priests,  that  is  to  say 
before  bishops ;  whereas  the  apostle  plainly 
teaches  us  that  priests  and  bishops  are  both 
one.' "... 

"St.  Augustine  saith:  'The  office  of  a 
bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a  priest  (not  by 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but)  after  the  names 
of  honor,  which  the  custom  of  the  Church  has 
now  obtained.'  "    Parker  Soc.  Ed, 


SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


CONCERNING  JEROME    AND    THE  CONTINENTAL 
REFORMERS. 

As  will  be  seen  from  what  has  preceded, 
there  has  been  a  contest  since  the  Reformation, 
over  the  meaning  of  the  statements  of  this  pre- 
eminently learned  writer. 

The  controversy  has  arisen  from  later  authors 
attempting  to  make  the  language  of  Jerome 
to  square  with  the  views  of  modern  High 
Churchmen,  who  hold  to  a  third  order  in  the 
ministry,  by  divine  right ;  instead  of  with  those 
who  preceded  him,  and  who  lived  within  two 
centuries  after  the  Apostles. 

The  testimony  here  presented  has  made  it 
clear  that  Jerome,  did  not  hold  to  the  view, 
which  among  English  writers,  was  first  held  by 
the  School  of  Laud,  and  his  sympathizers;  and 
which  has  been  so  strongly  pressed  by  the  Ox- 
ford Tractarians,  and  those  who  sympathize 
with  them  here,  and  in  the  mother  country. 

The  attempt  to  twist  the  meaning  of  this 
distinguished  father  of  the  Post-Nicene  Church 
has  failed. 
(321; 


322  SUPPLKMEN'TARY  APPENDIX. 


The  view  which  Antiquity  took  of  Jerotne's 
language,  the  same  as  that  of  the  English,  and 
Continental  Reformers;  cannot  be  overthrown. 

This  is  acknowledged  by  a  famous  Koman 
Catholic  author,  Alphonsus  De  Castro,  Arch- 
bishop of  Carapostello,  who  came  to  England 
with  Philip  II,  and  who  in  his  Book,  Contra 
Heres,  p.  103,  rebukes  a  writer  who  sought  to 
evade  Jerome's  clear  testimony,  thus:  "But 
Thomas  Waldensis  truly  is  deceived  ;  for  Je- 
rome does  endeavor  to  prove  that  according  to 
divine  institution,  there  was  no  difference  be- 
tween presbyter  and  bishop," 

We  have  seen  what  was  the  view  of  Cranmer, 
as  often  expressed.  The  same  was  that  of 
Bishops  Cox  and  Pilkington,  and  Dr.  Redmayn, 
Prayer  Book  Revisers ;  of  Bishop  Alley,  and 
Lambert  and  Fulke  ;  of  Dean  Field  and  Bishops 
Morton  and  Bedell ;  of  Professor  Whittaker,  of 
Cambridge,  and  Bishop  Jewel ;  who  repeatedly 
refer  to  Jerome  as  an  authority  to  establish  the 
fact,  that  by  the  word  of  God,  there  are  but  two 
orders  in  the  Christian  ministry. 

THE  CONTINENTAL  REFORMERS. 

If  we  pass  to  the  Continent,  we  find  the  most 
eminent  Reformers  also  referring  to  Jerome  for 
authority. 

This  is  nowhere  more  prominent  than  in  the 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 


^23 


Smalkakl  Articles,  1537,  drawn  up  by  Luther, 
aticl  signed  by  Melaucthon,  Bugenhagen,  Jonas, 
Myconius,  Bucer,  Fagius,  and  other  illustrious 
Reformers.  Here  we  read  :  "  Wherefore  Je- 
rome plainly  affirms,  that  there  is  no  difierence 
between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter ;  but  that 
ever}'  pastor  is  a  bishop.  Here  Jerome  teaches 
that  the  distinction  of  degrees  between  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  or  pastor,  was  only  appointed 
by  human  authority,  and  the  thing  itself  im- 
ports no  less ;  for  on  both  bishop  and  presbyter 
is  laid  the  same  duty,  and  the  same  charge. 
Only  ordination,  in  after  times,  made  the  diffe- 
rence between  bishop  and  pastor.  By  divine 
right  there  is  no  difierence  between  a  bishop 
and  a  pastor  or  presbyter;  orders  communicated 
by  the  later  are  valid,  because  of  divine  right; 
the  power  of  jurisdiction  or  government  belongs 
to  all  pastors  or  presbyters,  and  has  been  un- 
lawfully and  shamefully  appropriated  to  them 
selves  by  diocesan  bishops.'' 

As  this  document  was  agreed  to  and  signed 
by  the  Electors,  Dukes,  Counts,  Barons,  Consuls 
and  Senators  from  thirty- five  cities,  together 
with  eight  thousand  clergymen;  it  establishes 
the  fact  that  the  Lutheran  Reformers  received 
the  teachings  of  Jerome,  in  the  same  sense  with 
Cranraer  and  his  associates.  The  last  public 
Document  of    the   Lutheran    Church,  The 


3-24 


SUPPLEMEXTARY  APPENDIX. 


Syllabus  of  Controverted  Points,"  ch.  18,  §  4,  is 
no  less  explicit ;  "  ordiaation  to  the  work  of 
the  ministry  is  necessary  in  a  church  at  liberty  ; 
but  this  act  does  not  belong  to  bishops  alone» 
nor  can  it  with  propriety  be  called  a  sacra- 
ment. We  hold  this  in  opposition  to  the  Papists, 
and  also  to  certain  English  Episcopalians,  as 
Carleton,  Hall  and  Bilson,  who  distinguish  be- 
tween presbyters  and  bishops,  as  to  the  point  of 
ordination." 

The  Confessions  of  Saxony,  1551  ;  of  Wir- 
tenburg,  1552  ;  of  Belgium,  1556  ;  of  Bohemia, 
1573  ;  contain  similar  statements.  The  second 
Helvetic  confession,  1566,  was  signed  not  only 
by  the  Swiss,  but  by  the  Churches  of  Geneva, 
Hungary,  Savoy,  Polonia,  Scotland  and  others  ; 
and  this  document  after  referring  to  Jerome's 
testimony,  reads  :  "Thus  far  Jerome  ;  now  there- 
fore no  man  can  forbid,  by  any  right,  that  we  may 
return  to  the  old  appointment  of  God,  and  rather 
receive  that,  than  the  custom  devised  by  men. 
.  .  .  The  power  that  is  given  to  the  ministers 
of  the  Church  is  the  same  in  all ;  and  in  the 
begiiming,  the  bishops  or  elders,  did  with  a 
common  consent  and  labor  govern  the  Church. 
No  man  lifted  himself  up  above  auotJier." 


OHURCH  OF  HOLLAND. 


325 


THE  CHURCH  OP  HOLLAND. 

Such  was  the  view  taken  by  the  Church  of 
Holland,  One  of  the  articles  of  the  famous 
Synod  of  Dort,  1618,  is :  "As  for  the  ministers 
of  God's  word,  they  have  equally  the  power 
and  authority  wheresoever  they  are."  In  a 
work  entitled  "  Synopsis  Theologiae,"  prepared 
hy  Polyander,  Thysius  and  Walaeus,  members 
of  that  Synod,  and  Professors  in  three  Dutch 
Universities;  xlii.  §  29,  etc.,  we  read:  "The 
practice  of  investing  one  person  from  among 
the  presbyters,  with  the  authority  of  President, 
and  giving  him  by  way  of  eminence,  the  title 
of  bishop,  was  not  a  divine  but  a  mere  human 
appointment,  and  was  brought  in  after  the 
Apostles'  time;  as,  after  Jerome,  many  of  the 
Papists  themselves  confess,  particularly  Lom- 
bard, Gratian,  Cusan  and  others." 

Similar  views  were  held  by  the  Danish 
Church  which  retained  Episcopacy.  Tlic  first 
Danish  Confession — 1537 — states  that  "True 
bishops  or  priests  are  all  the  same."  The  King 
of  Denmark,  as  Duke  of  Holstein,  signed  the 
Articles  of  Smalkald  1538.  Vandalin,  Professor 
of  Theology  in  Copenhagen,  writes,  1727 :  "  Are 
bishops  and  presbyters  distinct  orders  by  divine 
risht?    We  deny  it;  iu  opposition  to  th"  Pa- 


82G 


SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


pistR  and  to  certain  persons  of  the  Church  of 
England." 

The  Swedish  Church,  also  Episcopal,  takes 
this  view  of  the  human  origin  of  the  episco- 
pate.   See  Miller's  Letters,  p.  274. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  FRANCE. 

The  remaining  Continental  Church,  that  of 
France,  in  her  Confession,  takes  the  same 
ground.  The  language  of  two  of  her  most  emi- 
nent divines  will  testify  to  the  point.  And  first, 
Calvin,  whom  Hooker  styles  "a  worthy  vessel 
of  God's  glory — the  wisest  man  that  ever  the 
French  Church  did  enjoy,"  and  Bishop  An- 
di'ews :  "an  illustrious  person,  and  never  to  be 
mentioned  without  a  preface  of  the  highest 
honor."  Bishop  Carleton  well  remarks  in  re- 
lation to  the  smaller  lights  who  have  abused 
this  illustrious  Christian's  memory:  "Some 
take  it  for  a  sign  looking  towards  Popery, 
when  the  members  of  our  own  Church  offer 
such  a  service  to  the  Papists,  as  to  speak  evil 
of  them  that  have  been  the  greatest  enemies  of 
Popery,  the  greatest  propagators  of  the  truth." 

Calvin,  from  whose  Genevan  Prayer  Book, 
■was  taken  the  Introductory  portion  of  our 
Morning  service,  and  of  the  Communion  Office, 
and  whose  work  is  thus  so  strikingly  stamped 
upon  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  in  the 


CALVIN. 


32T 


preparation  of  which  his  counsel  was  so  sought, 
valued,  and  followed,  by  the  founders  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is  most  emphatic  in  his 
lansfuam-e  concernino;  the  meanino;  of  Jerome. 
From  his  Institutes,  long  a  text  book  in  the 
University  of  Oxford,  we  quote,  Book  iv.  eh.  4: 
"Jerome  in  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
Titus  saith :  A  presbyter  was  the  same  as  a 
bishop,  &c.  .  .  .  And  in  another  place  (Epist. 
ad  Evagr),  he  teaches  how  ancient  an  institu- 
tion this  was:  for  he  says  that  at  Alexandria, 
from  Mark  tlie  Evangelist,  down  to  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters  always  placed 
one  chosen  out  of  their  number  in  a  higher 
station  and  called  him  bishop.  Every  city  then 
had  a  college  of  Presbyters,  who  were  pastors 
and  teachers,  and  who  all  executed  among  the 
people  the  offices  of  instructing,  exhorting  and 
exercising  discipline,  which  Paul  enjoins  on 
bishops.  Titus,  1,  9.  And  every  one  of  these 
colleges  (as  I  said  before),  was  under  the  presi- 
dency of  one  bishop  who  was  only  so  far  above 
the  rest  in  dignity,  as  to  be  himself  subject  to 
the  assembly  of  his  brethren." 

On  Philip,  1,  1,  again  referring  to  Jerome,  he 
says:  "Afterwards  it  became  customary  that 
he  who  presided  in  the  bench  of  presbyters  of 
a  particular  Church,  should  alone  be  called 
bishop.    This,  however,  arose  from  human  cus- 


SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


torn,  and  is  by  no  means  supported  by  Scrip- 
ture." .  .  .  Out  of  the  corrupted  signification 
of  a  word,  this  evil  arose,  that  thence,  as  if  all 
the  presbyters  were  not  colleagues,  and  called 
to  the  same  function,  one,  under  the  pretext  of 
a  new  title,  arrogated  to  himself  a  dominion 
over  others."  ...  On  Acts  xiv.  28,  he  writes: 
"It  arose  from  corruption,  and  a  departure  from 
primitive  purity,  that  those  who  held  the  first 
seats  in  particular  cities,  began  to  be  called 
bishops.  I  say  that  it  arose  from  corruption, 
not  that  it  is  an  evil  for  some  one,  in  each  col- 
lege of  pastors,  to  be  distinguished  above  the 
the  rest;  but  because  it  is  an  intolerable  pre- 
sumptioF',  that  men  in  perverting  the  titles  of 
Scripture  to  their  own  humor,  do  not  hesitate 
to  alter  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Calvin's  own  words,  often  and  plainly  ex- 
pressed, settle  the  fact  that  he  was  entirely 
satisfied  with  his  own  Presbyterian  ordination, 
and  felt  himself  fully  empowered  to  take  the 
part  of  ordaining  others  into  the  presbytery. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CLAUDE. 

We  close  this  testimony  of  the  Continental 
Reformers,  with  another  famous  divine  of  the 
French  Church,  Claude,  the  antagonist  of  Boss- 
uet ;  according  to  Mosheim,  a  man  "  of  great 
erudition  and  eloquence,"  at  whose  death  Wil- 


CLAtlDE. 


329 


liani  of  Orange  shed  tears.  In  his  celebrated 
"Historical  Defence  of  the  Reformation,"  he 
uses  decided  language  on  the  point  here  dis- 
cussed :  p.  372.  "  Can  this  author  be  ignorant 
of  the  opinion  of  St.  Jerome,  of  Hilary  the  dea- 
con, and  after  them  of  Hincmar ;  which  they 
have  so  explicitly  given,  concerning  the  unity 
or  identity  of  the  office  of  bishop  or  presbyter, 
in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church  ;  and  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  that  distinction  which 
afterwards  took  place  between  them.  Can  he 
be  ignorant  that  St.  Augustin  himself,  writing 
to  St.  Jerome,  refers  that  distinction,  not  to  the 
primitive  institution  of  the  ministry,  but  merely 
to  an  ecclesiastical  custom  which  has  since 
grownup?  Can  he  be  ignorant  that  some  of 
the  fathers  have  taught  us,  that  the  ordination 
of  a  presbyter  and  a  bishop  are  strictly  one  and 
the  same,  and  not  different  kinds  of  acts,  suf- 
ficiently expressing  to  us  the  identity  of  the 
offices."  Claude,  in  language  which  reflects 
the  present  sentiments  of  the  great  body  of 
Protestant  ministers,  with  respect  to  the  base- 
less and  offensive  claims  of  the  High  Church 
exclusive  Successionists,  indignantly  repudiates 
these  assumptions  and  proceeds  :  Can  he  deny 
that  presbyters  anciently  ordained  equally  with 
bishops  ?  The  right  of  ordination  is  one  that 
naturally  belongs  to  presbyters.    And  since 


330  SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


they  ba  ve  been  deprived^of  it  by  rules  and  con- 
stitutions, which  are  merely  of  human  author- 
ity, the  right  still  remains  essentially  attached 
to  their  office,  and  they  may  justly  reclaim  it, 
whenever  the  state  of  the  Church  will  permit. 

"  And  that  I  may  declare  my  opinion  with 
freedom,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  haughty  and 
insolent  opinion,  which  maintains  the  absolute 
necessity  of  Episcopal  ordinations,  and  without 
them  annihilates  the  Church,  the  ministry  and 
the  sacraments,  however  pure  the  faith,  the 
doctrine  and  the  piety  of  the  Church  may  be: 
thus  making  religion  depend  on  a  form,  and 
that  form  a  mere  human  invention.  I  repeat 
it,  it  appears  to  me  that  this  insolent  opinion 
carries  on  it  the  character  of  a  Bhameful  cor- 
ruption ;  it  bears  the  mark  of  profound  hypoc- 
risy, of  a  pure  pharisaism,  which  strains  at  a 
gnat,  while  it  swallows  a  camel.  I  cannot  help 
having,  at  least,  a  deep  contempt  for  such 
opinions,  and  compassion  for  those  who  are  thus 
obstinate  and  headstrong  in  maintaining  them." 

A  letter  of  Claude's  having  been  published, 
by  some  who  claimed  that  he  greatly  favored 
Episcopal  government,  such  as  was  in  England  ; 
in  1681,  Claude  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  London 
and  also  to  a  lady,  stating  that  the  former  let- 
ter was  not  intended  for  the  public:  that  it 
greatly  misrepresented  him  (as  has  been  the 


CLAUDE. 


331 


case  with  Jerome),  that  "he  was  surprised  and 
astonished  to  see  it  as  well  in  French  as  in  Eng- 
lisli  ;  that  he  had  two  things  in  view,  to  justify 
us  from  the  calumny  which  some  persons  im- 
puted to  us  of  believing  that  salvation  could 
not  be  obtained  under  the  Episcopal  govern- 
ment, "  and  of  aiding  "a  good  and  holy  union 
of  the  two  parties." 

He  says  also:  "The  N'on-Conformists  com- 
plain .  .  .  that  you  will  receive  no  one  to  the 
niiiiistry,  till  he  acknowledges,  on  oath,  that 
Episcopacy  is  of  divine  riglit,  which  is  a  hell  to 
the  conscience.  They  complain,  that,  whilst 
you  do  not  re-ordain  the  Roman  Catholic  priests 
who  come  to  you,  you  re-ordain  ministers,  who 
come  to  you  from  beyond  the  seas,  in  the 
Churches  of  France,  Holland,  etc.  Thoy  com- 
plain that  the  bishops  have  a  rigid  attachment 
to  many  ceremonies  which  are  otlensive,  and 
for  which,  nevertheless,  they  combat  tanquatn 
■pro  arts  et  focis.  In  the  name  of  God,  my  Lord, 
labor  to  remove  these  grounds  of  complaint,  if 
tliere  is  any  truth  in  them  ;  if  there  is  not,  to 
give  information  of  the  real  state  of  the  case. 
And  let  all  Europe  know  that  there  is  nothing 
which  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  love  of  the 
Church  can  demand  of  you,  that  you  are  not 
ready  to  grant." 

Strange  is  it,  that,  now,  two  hundred  years 


332 


SUPPLEMENTARY 


APPENDIX. 


after  tliis  letter,  in  this  free  land  of  light ;  this 
same  baseless,  ofleusive,  and  harmful  claim  is 
troubling  our  Protestant  Israel;  limiting  the 
comfort,  influence  and  power  of  Christian  min- 
isters; an  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  charity, 
courtesy  and  peace  ;  an  unhealthy  and  unsightly 
fungus  on  the  Body  of  Christ. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  can  find  no  better  words  with  which  to 
close  our  Inquiry  than  those  of  the  lamented 
Professor  Hatch,  and  his  able  critics. 

With  respect  to  differing  forms  of  Church 
government  Dr.  Hatch  writes,  p.  213:  "The 
fact  of  the  necessity  and  desirability  of  form 
is  no  proof  of  the  necessity  and  desirability 
of  this  or  that  particular  form.  Nor  is  the 
fact  that  a  particular  form  was  good  for  a 
particular  age  a  proof  that  it  is  also  good 
for  another  age.  The  history  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  Christianity  has  been  in  reality  the  his- 
tory of  successive  readjustments  of  form  to 
altered  circumstances.  Its  power  of  readjust- 
ment has  been  at  once  a  mark  of  its  divinity 
and  a  secret  of  its  strength."  p.  215.  "The 
most  significant  fact  of  modern  Christian  his- 
tory is  that  within  the  last  hundred  years,  many 
millions  of  our  own  race  and  our  own  Church, 
without  departing  from  the  ancient  faith,  have 


DR.  R.  B.  WELCH. 


333 


slipped  from  beneath  the  inelastic  framework 
of  tlie  ancient  organization,  and  formed  a  group 
of  new  societies  on  the  liasis  of  a  closer  Chris- 
tian brotherhood,  and  an  almost  absolute  de- 
mocracy." 

This  brilliant,  scholarly  and  candid  work  has 
been  left  as  a  rich  legacy  to  the  Church,  by  this 
gifted  divine,  removed  so  unexpectedly  in  the 
fullness  of  his  powers,  and  with  the  promise  of 
greater  results. 

Professor  Fairbairn  alluding  to  the  recent 
death  of  Dr.  Hatch  in  the  Cont.  Rev.,  March, 
^1890,  p.  405,  remarks  of  him:  "  Who  of  all 
recent  Oxford  men  most  fulfilled  the  ideal  of  the 
scholar  in  Theology,  and  applied  in  a  spirit  as 
reverent  as  it  was  thorough,  the  scientific  method 
to  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  institutions.  But 
there  wiis  no  man  who  more  thoroughly  be- 
lieved, or  who  was  so  armed  with  proofs  to 
support  his  belief,  that  Anglo-catholicism  was 
utterly  unhistorical,  as  Edwin  Hatch." 

BR.  R.  B.  WELCH. 

We  have  in  the  timely  criticism  of  Dr.  Ran- 
som B.Welsh,  Professor  in  Auburn  Seminary,  on 
the  offer  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  by  the  House 
of  Prot.  Epis.  Bishops,  and  the  replies  to  it,  in 
the  Presby.  Rev.,  July,  1888,  reference  to  Dr. 
Hatch,  and  e^^tract^  from  his  work.   These  we 


334 


SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


present,  with  interesting  and  pertinent  remarks 
oil  the  ofter  which  has  attracted  so  ruuch  atten- 
tion. After  quoting  Dr.  Jacol>,  Dr.  Welch 
says,  p.  358 :  "  Dr.  Hatch  proceeds  at  length  to 
show,  'by  what  gradual  steps  the  Congrega- 
tional System  of  early  times  passed  into  the  Dio- 
cesan System  of  later  times ;  how  the  National 
Churches  arose  from  Communities  becominy: 
grouped  in  larger  combinations  on  the  political 
lines,  first  of  the  Eoman  administration,  and 
afterwards  of  the  newly-formed  kingdoms  of 
the  West,  so  as  to  form  the  aggregates  or  units 
which  are  known  as  National  Churches  (Roman, 
Anglican,  etc.).' " 

"It  has  no  doubt  been  sometimes  maintained 
that  the  diocese  in  its  modern  sense  is  an  insti- 
tution of  primitive  times.  But  the  jrecorded 
facts  are  far  from  supporting  this  view.  .  .  . 
In  earlier  times  such  a  system  would  have  been 
impossible;"  again,  "the  idea  that  ordination 
conveys  not  merely  status  hut  character^  and  still 
more  the  idea  that  such  character  is  indellible, 
are  foreign  to  primitive  times."  There  is,  he 
says,  such  variance  (of  the  primitive  and 
Eastern)  with  the  Western  Church  in  later 
times,  and  especially  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  hardly  to  be  credible  except  upon  the 
clearest  evidence,"  which  he  proceeds  to  give 
with  tjje  successive  rnoditications  and  readapt^' 


DR.  R.  B.  WELCH. 


335 


tions  from  the  Congregational  system  of  early 
Christianity,  to  the  diocesan  system  of  mediaeval 
times."  He  adds :  "  Hence  Dr.  Jacob's  conclu- 
sion is  in  keeping  with  Dr.  Hatch :  '  that  in  such 
matters  the  Church  may  appoint  in  any  mode 
which  may  be  deemed  most  expedient,  amena- 
ble only  to  the  general  law  of  decency  and 
order;  that  to  restrict  ordination  to  the  hands 
of  bishops  is  owing  to  no  divine  law  or  apos- 
tolic prescription."  Confirmatory  authorities 
are  referred  to  and  largely  quoted  from  Jerome 
to  Lightfoot.  The  resultant  is  tbus  substan- 
tially stated  on  the  one  hand  :  "  However  the 
Churches  like  our  own  may  prefer  the  Episco- 
pal government  and  ordination  ;  yet  on  the 
other  hand,  the  government  and  ordinations  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  are  just  as  valid, 
Scriptural  and  apostolic  as  our  own  "  (pp.  114, 
115). 

As  Dr.  Welch  so  fully  reflects  the  mind  of 
the  Non-Episcopal  Churches  with  respect  to 
the  reordination  which  is  expected  of  tliem, 
on  accepting  the  basis  of  unity  proposed,  his 
remarks  are  valuable  and  pertinent,  and  we 
therefore  give  them.  On  p.  356,  he  says,  with 
reference  to  the  language  of  some  of  the  Prot. 
Epis.  bishops  in  connection  with  this  offer: 
"From  the  Episcopal  statements  just  quoted,  is 
it  oot  apparent  to  what  committal  those  may 


336  SUPPLEMENTARY  APPENDIX. 


be  exposed,  who  would  accept  the  Declaration 
of  the  House  of  Bishops  without  conference— 
a  committal  to  open  and  high  sacerdotalism, 
sacraraentarianism  and  Episcopal  control ;  a 
clerical  priesthood  divinely  empowered  (and  it 
alone  empowered)  as  a  mediating,  sacrificing, 
absolving  order — strictly  and  consummately  a 
hierarchical  order  through  which  is  given  effect 
to  every  Christian  ordinance,  even  regenerating 
men  in  baptism,  actually  offering  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist, 
absolving  from  sin  or  condemning  under  the 
terrors  of  excommunication,  and  including  '  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  'as  essential 
to  our  definition  of  a  valid  ministry." 

Having  presented  the  views  of  the  Reformers 
and  great  divines  of  England  down  to  the  pres- 
ent day,  as  declared  in  the  language  of  Dr. 
Stanley,  "  According  to  the  strict  rules  of  the 
Church  derived  from  the  early  times,  there  are 
but  two  orders — presbyters  and  deacons"  (the 
view  publicly  asserted  by  the  Reformed  Episco- 
pal Church,  which  alone  distinctly  represents 
the  English  Reformation).  Dr.  W.  concludes 
thus :  "  Here,  within  the  Episcopal  Church, 
and  by  high  authority  earlier  and  later,  is  fur- 
nished an  alternative  to  the  extreme  and  exclu- 
sive views  of  historic  Episcopacy.  According 
to  the  broader  and  more  primitive  view,  there 


DR.  R.  B.  WteLCH. 


337 


is  not  only  place  but  occasion  for  'brotherly 
conference  '  and  mutual  correction. 

'•  Here  there  is  ground  for  possible  conciliation 
and  practical  compromise.  Here  is  an  open  and 
sure  'way  out  of  denominationalism,'  to  copy  a 
phrase  from  the  Churchiaan — a  way  no  less 
practicable,  it  would  seem,  for  the  Episcopal 
than  for  the  Non-Episcopal,  illustrated,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  paper,  by  the  practice  to-day 
in  the  historical,  philological,  and  scientific 
world,  of  '  discovering  truth  by  comparison  of 
views  ;'  and  we  might  add,  not  according  to 
the  practice  of  former  days  by  ecclesiastical 
decrees  assuming  and  dictating  what  shall  be 
scientific  truth.    The  application  is  easy. 

'*  Many  candid,  wise  and  noble  men,  Episco- 
pal no  less  than  Non-Episcopal,  see  in  this 
direction  not  only  a  way  out  of  denomination- 
alism, but  into  Christian  unity — not  into  ab- 
sorption and  uniformity,  but  into  Christian 
co-operation  and  intercommunion." 

The  way  fortunately  has  already  been  made 
easy,  and  when  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
has  conformed  itself  to  the  ways  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church,  and  to  the  views  of  the  Reformed 
Episcopacy  of  Cranmerand  his  fellow- workers ; 
as  has  been  already  done  by  anticipation,  thor- 
oughly by  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church; 
when  it  has,  throwing  oflf  its  weights,  elevated 


S3S  aypi>LEMKNtASV  At»PEM&l}t. 


itself  to  this  Apostolic  pUtform ;  it  can  assist 
iu  promoting  Christian  unity.  On  no  other 
grounds  can  its  oflFers  of  peace  and  union  be 
consistently  and  favorably  received,  by  the  great 
body  of  Protestant  Christians  in  this  and  other 
lands. 


"How  I  wish  there  had  been  no  presidency, 
no  preference  of  place,  no  arbitrary  privilege, 
that  we  might  be  distinguished  by  virtue  only. 
But  now  this  right  hand,  and  left  band,  and 
middle,  and  higher,  and  lower;  this  going  be- 
fore, and  following  in  company,  have  produced 
us  much  unprofitable  affliction,  brought  many 
into  a  snare,  'and  thrust  them  away  into  the 
company  of  the  goats:  not  only  of  the  inferior 
class,  but  also  of  the  shepherds,  who  being 
masters  in  Israel,  have  not  known  these  things." 
Gregory  Kazianzen,  Archbp.  of  Constantinople. 


INDEX. 


A. 

PAGE 


Alford,  Dean,    Testimony  of  189 

Amalarius,               "  208 

Ambrose,                "  21 

Anonymous  Author,  "  195 


B 

Babiugton,  Bp.,  Testimony  of  186 

Bacon,  Lord,  "  231 

Bancroft,  Abp.,  "  184 

Bangs,  Dr  ,  "  114 

Baxter,  Richard.  "  150 

Biiigliam,  "  17 

Bowdler,  "  78 

Bradford,  John,  "  168 

Brown,  Dr.,  "  138 

Bullinger,  "  26 

Burnet,  Bp.,  "  4 


C. 

Calfhill,           Testimony  of  183 

Campbell,  Dr.,         "  142 

Coleman,  Lyman,      "  121 

Cosin,  Bp.,               "  4 

Cranmer,  Abp.,  Liberality  of  7 

"          "     Testimony  of  175 

Cummiug,  Dr.,         "  127 


D. 

Davenaut,  Bp.,  Testimony  of  187 

(339) 


E. 


Edward  VI.,  Patent  granted 

by       ....  6 

Essays  on  the  Church,  Notice 

of        .       .       .  .217 

Eutychius,  Testimony  of     .  19 

F. 

Field,  Dean,      Testimony  of  186 

P'leetwood,  Bp.,         "  5 

Fulke,  Dr.,               "  181 

G. 

Garratt,  W.  A.,  Argument  of  69 

Giesler,        Testimony  of  .  108 

Goode,  Dr.,           "           .  56 

Griswold,  Bp.,      "           .  320 

H. 

Hall,  Bp.,  Testimony  of      .  3 

Hallam,  "  .  5 
Harrison,  .John,  Confirmatory 

evidence  of  212 
Hase,  Dr.,          Testimony  of  15 

Herzog,                     "    '  111 

Hilary,                      "  21 

Hoadley,  Bp.,             "  156 

Hooker,  Richard,        "  153 

Hooper,  Bp.,              "  173 

Hopkins,  Bp.,            "  191 

Hospinian,                 "  15 

Howe,  Prof.,              "  14 


340 


INDEX. 


'J4  Kainolds,  Dr.,  Testimony  of  30 
22  Riddle,  Rev.  J.  E.,  "  59, 64 
176   Ridley,  Bp.,  "  171 

"  Rights  of   the  Christian 

Church,"  Notice  of  195 


J. 

Jarvis,  Examination  of 
Jerome,  St.,  Testimony  of 
Jewel,  Bp.,  " 

K. 


Keble,  Testimony  of    .      .  3 

Killen,  Dr.,  "    "         .       .  131 

L. 

Latimer,  Bp.,  Testimony  of  173 

Laud,  Abp..          "    "  188 

Layman,  A.,         "  217 

Litton,  Prof.,         "  55 

Lord,  Dr.,             "  10 

M. 

Macaulay,  Testimony  of      .  5 

Mahan,  Dr.,  Examination  of  96 

Mason,  Francis,  Testimony  of  184 

Morinus,                  "  81 

Mu.sgraye,  Abp.,      "  192 

N. 

Neale,  Rev.  J.  M.  Argument 

of          ....  87 

Neander,  Testimony  of       .  110 

O. 

O'Brien,  Bp.,  Testimony  of  .  190 
P. 

Pearson,  Dean,  Testimony  of  189 
Percival,  Dr.,  Examination 

of         ....  87 
Philpot,  Archdeacon,  Testi- 
mony of        ...  175 
Pilkington,  Bp.,  Testimony  of  iSO 
Powell,  Thomas,      "  ill 


S. 

SchafF,  Dr.,       Testimony  of  107 


Severus,                   "  21 

Smith,  Dr.,               "  192 

Stanley,  Dean,           "  16, 54 

Stevens,  Abel,            "  116 

Stillingfleet,  Bp.,       "  47 

Strype,                    "  3 

Suiflner,  Abp.,           "  193 

T. 

TertuUian,  Testimony  of  .  63 

Tostatus,           "    ■  .  210 

Tyler,  Prof.,      "  .  12 

U. 

Usher,  Abp.,  Testimony  of  .  45 
V 

Via  Media,  Theory  of  .  .  214 
W. 

Warren,  Dr.,     Testimony  of  227 

Wharton,  Dr.,           "    '  191 

AVhite,  Francis,  Bp.,    "  187 

White,  Thomas,         "  187 

Whitgift,  Abp.,  Order  of  .  27 

"         "     Testimony  of  24 

Whittaker,  Dr.,  '•  "  181 
"Whose  are  the  Fathers?" 

Notice  of       .       .  .  206 

Willet,  Dr.,  Testimony  of  34, 181 

Wilson,  Dr.,        "  116 


INDEX  TO  SUPPLEMENT. 


A. 


PAQB 

.  :ioo 

281,  283, 
299,  302 

Andrews,  Bp.,  on  Calvin,  320 


Ambrosiaster,  . 
Ancyra,  Council  of. 


Augustine, 
Asbury,  Bp., 


B. 


Basnage,  . 
Baxter, 

British  Quarterly, 
Boardman,  11.  A., 
BuDsen  on  Ignatius, 
Burnet,  Bp., 

C. 


320,  329 
243 


249,  2.53 
.  264 
.  289 
.  276 
.  30.5 

249,  266 


Calvin,  .  .  .  336-8 
Carleton,  Bp.,  on  Calvin,  326 
Clirysostona,  .  .  .279 
Claude,  .  .  .  328-31 
Col<e,  Bp.,  .  .  .244 
Conder,  .  .  .  .249 
Conclusion,  .  .  .333 
(Jranmer,  ....  267 
Cyprian,    .       .       .  .308 


Danish  Confession,  .  .  325 

De  Castro,        .  .  .  332 

Doddridge,       .  .  .  2.54 

Dort,  Synod  of,  .  .  325 

Dwight,  Dr.  T.,  .  .  367 

(341) 


Ellendorf,  . 
Emory,  Bp., 
Eusebius,  . 
Eutychius, 


Fisher,  Prof.,  . 
Flatcus,  Albinus, 
Fairbairn,  Principal, 
France,  Church  of,  . 


Gore,  Rev.  C, 
Greenwood, 


H. 

Hall,  E.  E.,  . 
Hatch,  Dr.  E.,  . 
Hilary, 

Ilitchcocli,  Prof., 
Hlucmar,  . 
Hdbart,  Bp., 
Hooker  on  Calvin, 
Hollaed,  Church  of. 


Jacob,  G.  A.,  . 
Jenkins,  Canon, 
Jawel,  Bp., 


PAOE 

309 
245 
265 
319 


.  361 
.  39S 

287,  298 
.  336 


337,  391 
.  304 


.  255 
287,  332,  334 
259,  285 
.  258 
.  339 
.  271 
.  326 
.  325 


287,  335 
.  350 
.  830 


L. 

LlghtfOot,  Bp., 
Luther, 

Lutheran  Syllabus, 
M. 

Mark,  a  Presbyter, 
Mason,  J.  M.,  . 
MelancthoD, 
Merriam,  G.  S., 
Miller,  S.  Prof., 
Mossman, . 

N. 


PAOB 

282-4 
.  32.3 
.  334 


301 

268 
323 
254 
266 
294 


Non-Epis.  Churches,    294,  304, 
331 

Novatus,  .       .      ,  .292 


Patton,  J.  M., 
Paphnutius, 
Peck,  Dr.  G., 


Renaudot, 


.  317 
.  292 
.  246 


264 


Sacerdotalistn. 
Sanders,  . 
Saravia, 
Schaflf,  Prof., 
Shepherd,  . 
Smyth.  Dr.  Th. 
Sparks,  Jared, 
Stanley,  Dean, 
Stevens,  Abel, 
SlillinKfleet, 
Synopsis,  Tlieo 
Synesins,  . 
Sinalcald,  Art.  of. 


262, 


Vandalin,  . 


Walter, 
Welch,  Prof,, 
Wesley, 
Wliitiiilt,  . 


W. 


387,  336 

.  31S 

.  317 

.  304 

.  309 

.  269 

.  251 

.  336 

.  242 

.  257 

.  325 

.  293 

.  323 


325 


.  312 

333-7 
.  242 
.  315 


Whittaker  on  Jerome,  251,  313 


